diff --git "a/triplets2/triples-optimized_text2kg" "b/triplets2/triples-optimized_text2kg"
deleted file mode 100644--- "a/triplets2/triples-optimized_text2kg"
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,540 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "text2kg": {
-    "lm": null,
-    "traces": [],
-    "train": [],
-    "demos": [
-      {
-        "augmented": true,
-        "input_text": "iii \n About the Author  \nMichael Hatfield is a Professor of Law at University of Washington School \nof Law.  Previously he was a Professor of Law at Texas Tech University \nwhere he served as the Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Research \nand held the Glenn D. West Research Professorship. Michael has served as a \nVisiting Professor of Law at the University of Washington School of Law \nand at the Seattle University Scho ol of Law, and worked as an associate at \nDebevoise & Plimpton in New York, New York and at Simpson, Thacher \n& Bartlett in New York, New York. From 2010 -2012, Michael served as \nthe Glenn D. West Research Professor at Texas Tech University. In 2010, \nhe was a warded the Texas Tech University President's Excellence in \nTeaching Award, and in 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 he was named \nthe Outstanding Professor of the Year. In 2007 he was awarded the Texas \nTech University Alumni Association New Faculty Award. He  teaches \ncourses in taxation, ethics, and trusts and estates. His research has been \npublished in the Florida Tax Review, the Northwestern Law Review \nColloquy, the NYU Annual Survey of American Law, the Baylor Law \nReview, the Notre Dame Journal of Ethics an d Public Policy, the Lewis & \nClark Law Review, the Texas Tech Law Review, Tax Notes and the Johns \nHopkins University Press. With Baylor Law School Mills Cox Professor of \nLaw Thomas M. Featherston, Jr. he co -authored Q&A: Wills, Trusts and \nEstates (2nd. ed. , 2008).",
-        "triples": "(\"Michael Hatfield\", \"profession\", \"Professor of Law\"), (\"University of Washington School of Law\", \"affiliation\", \"Michael Hatfield\"), (\"Texas Tech University\", \"affiliation\", \"Michael Hatfield\"), (\"Texas Tech University\", \"position\", \"Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Research\"), (\"Texas Tech University\", \"position\", \"Glenn D. West Research Professorship\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"visiting professor\", \"University of Washington School of Law\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"visiting professor\", \"Seattle University School of Law\"), (\"Debevoise & Plimpton\", \"employer\", \"Michael Hatfield\"), (\"Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett\", \"employer\", \"Michael Hatfield\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"award\", \"Texas Tech University President's Excellence in Teaching Award\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"award\", \"Texas Tech University Alumni Association New Faculty Award\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"honor\", \"Outstanding Professor of the Year\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"teaches\", \"taxation\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"teaches\", \"ethics\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"teaches\", \"trusts and estates\"), (\"Florida Tax Review\", \"publication\", \"Michael Hatfield\"), (\"Northwestern Law Review Colloquy\", \"publication\", \"Michael Hatfield\"), (\"NYU Annual Survey of American Law\", \"publication\", \"Michael Hatfield\"), (\"Baylor Law Review\", \"publication\", \"Michael Hatfield\"), (\"Lewis & Clark Law Review\", \"publication\", \"Michael Hatfield\"), (\"Texas Tech Law Review\", \"publication\", \"Michael Hatfield\"), (\"Tax Notes\", \"publication\", \"Michael Hatfield\"), (\"Johns Hopkins University Press\", \"publication\", \"Michael Hatfield\"), (\"Baylor Law School Mills Cox Professor of Law Thomas M. Featherston, Jr.\", \"co-author\", \"Michael Hatfield\"), (\"Q&A: Wills, Trusts and Estates\", \"book\", \"Michael Hatfield\"), (\"Q&A: Wills, Trusts and Estates\", \"edition\", \"2nd. ed. , 2008\"), (\"University of Washington School of Law\", \"year of affiliation\", \"2012\"), (\"Texas Tech University\", \"year of affiliation\", \"2006\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"position\", \"Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Research\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"position\", \"Glenn D. West Research Professorship\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"award\", \"Texas Tech University President's Excellence in Teaching Award\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"award\", \"Texas Tech University Alumni Association New Faculty Award\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"honor\", \"Outstanding Professor of the Year\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"publication\", \"Florida Tax Review\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"publication\", \"Northwestern Law Review Colloquy\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"publication\", \"NYU Annual Survey of American Law\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"publication\", \"Baylor Law Review\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"publication\", \"Notre Dame Journal of Ethics and Public Policy\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"publication\", \"Lewis & Clark Law Review\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"publication\", \"Texas Tech Law Review\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"publication\", \"Tax Notes\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"publication\", \"Johns Hopkins University Press\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"book\", \"Q&A: Wills, Trusts and Estates\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"book edition\", \"2nd. ed. , 2008\"), (\"Baylor Law School Mills Cox Professor of Law Thomas M. Featherston, Jr.\", \"co-author\", \"Michael Hatfield\")"
-      },
-      {
-        "augmented": true,
-        "input_text": "iv \n Notices  \nThis is the third version of this chapter, updated March 2015 . Visit \nhttp:\/\/elangdell.cali.org\/  for the latest version revis ion history.  \n \nThis work by Michael Hatfield is licensed and published  by CALI \neLangdell Press  under a Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial -\nShareAlike 3.0 Unported License . CALI and CALI eLangdell Press reserve \nunder copyright all rights not expressly granted by this Creative Commons \nlicense. CALI and CALI eLangdell Press do not assert copyright in US \nGovernment works or other public domain material included herein. \nPermissions beyond the scope of this license may be available through \nfeedback@cali.org . \nIn brief, the terms of that license are that you may copy, distribute, and \ndisplay this work, or make derivative works, so lon g as \n\uf0b7 you give CALI eLangdell Press and the author credit;  \n\uf0b7 you do not use this work for commercial purposes; and  \n\uf0b7 you distribute any works derived from this one under the same \nlicensing terms as this.  \nSuggested attribution format for original work:  \nMichael H atfield, Ethics of Tax Lawyering, Published by CALI eLangdell \nPress. Available under a Creative Commons BY -NC-SA 3.0 License.  \nCopyright CALI 2015.  \nCALI\u00ae and eLangdell\u00ae are United States federally registered trademarks \nowned by the Center for Computer -Assisted Legal Instruction . The cover \nart design is a copyrighted work of CALI, all rights reserved. The CALI \ngraphical logo is a trademark and may not be used without permission.  \nShould you create derivative works based on the text of this book or other \nCreative Commons materials therein, you may not use this book\u2019s cover art \nand the aforementioned logos, or any derivative thereof, to imply \nendorsement or otherwise without written permission from CALI.",
-        "triples": "('Iv Notices', 'This is the third version', 'updated March 2015')\n('Iv Notices', 'Visit', 'http:\/\/elangdell.cali.org\/')\n('Iv Notices', 'for the latest version', 'revis ion history')\n('Michael Hatfield', 'work', 'is licensed and published by CALI eLangdell Press')\n('Michael Hatfield', 'under a Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial - ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License')\n('CALI and CALI eLangdell Press', 'reserve under copyright', 'all rights not expressly granted by this Creative Commons license')\n('CALI and CALI eLangdell Press', 'do not assert copyright', 'in US Government works or other public domain material included herein')\n('Permissions', 'beyond the scope of this license', 'may be available through feedback@cali.org')\n('In brief', 'the terms of that license', 'you may copy, distribute, and display this work, or make derivative works')\n('so long as', 'you give CALI eLangdell Press and the author credit')\n('you do not use this work for commercial purposes')\n('and', 'you distribute any works derived from this one under the same licensing terms as this')\n('Suggested attribution format', 'for original work', 'Michael H atfield, Ethics of Tax Lawyering, Published by CALI eLangdell Press. Available under a Creative Commons BY -NC-SA 3.0 License. Copyright CALI 2015.')\n('CALI\u00ae', 'and eLangdell\u00ae', 'are United States federally registered trademarks owned by the Center for Computer -Assisted Legal Instruction')\n('The cover art design', 'is a copyrighted work of CALI, all rights reserved.')\n('The CALI graphical logo', 'is a trademark and may not be used without permission.')\n('Should you create derivative works', 'based on the text of this book or other Creative Commons materials therein', 'you may not use this book\u2019s cover art and the aforementioned logos, or any derivative thereof, to imply endorsement or otherwise without written permission from CALI.')"
-      },
-      {
-        "augmented": true,
-        "input_text": "ii \n Ethics of Tax Lawyering  \n \n \n \n \nby \n \n \n \n \nMichael Hatfield  \nProfessor of Law  \nUniversity of Washington  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMarch  2015",
-        "triples": "(\"Ethics of Tax Lawyering\", \"author\", \"Michael Hatfield\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"profession\", \"Professor of Law\"), (\"Michael Hatfield\", \"affiliation\", \"University of Washington\"), (\"Ethics of Tax Lawyering\", \"publication date\", \"March 2015\"), (\"Ethics of Tax Lawyering\", \"topic\", \"ethical considerations in tax lawyering\")"
-      },
-      {
-        "augmented": true,
-        "input_text": "The court also recognized that the matter of taxation, \n\u2018which permeates almost every phase of modern life, is so \ninextricably interwoven with nearly every branch of law that",
-        "triples": "(\"court\", \"recognized\", \"matter of taxation\"), (\"matter of taxation\", \"permeates\", \"almost every phase of modern life\"), (\"matter of taxation\", \"inextricably interwoven with\", \"nearly every branch of law\"), (\"court\", \"recognized\", \"significance of taxation\"), (\"court\", \"specifically\", \"matter of taxation\")"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "or la w, there is no reason to ha ve a trial. F or e xamp le, the \nplaintiff sues on a promissory note and, at deposition (an oral \nexamination under o ath), the def endant admits ha ving made \nno p ayment on the note and off ers no e xcuse that w ould be \nrecognizab le as a reason not to p ay. There is no reason to ha ve \na trial, and the c ourt should grant summary judgment. \n3.3.2    Disc overy \nIf there is a f actual dispute, the c ase will usually in volve some \ndegre e of disc overy, where each p arty tries to get as much \ninformation out of the other p arty as the rules allo w. Until the \n1940s, when disc overy be came p art of civil proc edure rules, a \nlawsuit w as fre quently a game in which each p arty hid as much \ninformation as possib le and trie d to surprise the other p arty in \ncourt. \nBeginning with a change in the F ederal Rules of Civil \nProc edure adopte d b y the Supreme Court in 1938 and \nsubse quently f ollowed by man y of the states, the p arties are \nentitle d to learn the f acts of the c ase bef ore trial. The b asic idea \nis to help the p arties determine what the evidenc e might be, \nwho the potential witnesses are, and what spe cific issues are \nrelev ant. Disc overy c an proc eed by sev eral methods. A p arty \nreasonab le pe ople would disagre e. Summary judgment is a final \norder, and it is appealab le. 112  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "119",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"plaintiff\", \"sues on\", \"promissory note\"), (\"deposition\", \"involves\", \"admission of no payment on note\"), (\"defendant\", \"offers no excuse\", \"recognizable as reason not to pay\"), (\"court\", \"should grant\", \"summary judgment\"), (\"discovery\", \"occurs\", \"actual dispute\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"getting information from other party\"), (\"before 1940s\", \"lawsuit\", \"hide information and surprise other party\"), (\"1938\", \"Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\", \"adopted by Supreme Court\"), (\"1938\", \"change\", \"allow parties to learn facts before trial\"), (\"basic idea\", \"discovery\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"discovery\", \"can proceed\", \"several methods\"), (\"reasonable people\", \"would disagree\", \"\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\"), (\"discovery\", \"purpose\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\")",
-        "summary": "The legal process begins with a plaintiff suing on a promissory note, leading to a deposition where the defendant admits to not making any payments on the note. The defendant offers no excuse for not paying, which can be recognized as a reason not to pay. In such cases, the court should grant summary judgment. Discovery occurs when there is an actual dispute, and its purpose is to help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues. Discovery can proceed through several methods. If reasonable people would disagree, summary judgment cannot be granted. Summary judgment is a final order that is appealable.",
-        "answer": "(\"plaintiff\", \"sues on\", \"promissory note\"), (\"deposition\", \"involves\", \"admission of no payment on note\"), (\"defendant\", \"offers no excuse\", \"recognizable as reason not to pay\"), (\"court\", \"should grant\", \"summary judgment\"), (\"discovery\", \"occurs\", \"actual dispute\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"getting information from other party\"), (\"before 1940s\", \"lawsuit\", \"hide information and surprise other party\"), (\"1938\", \"Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\", \"adopted by Supreme Court\"), (\"1938\", \"change\", \"allow parties to learn facts before trial\"), (\"basic idea\", \"discovery\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"discovery\", \"can proceed\", \"several methods\"), (\"reasonable people\", \"would disagree\", \"\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\"), (\"discovery\", \"purpose\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\")",
-        "input_text": "or la w, there is no reason to ha ve a trial. F or e xamp le, the  plaintiff sues on a promissory note and, at deposition (an oral  examination under o ath), the def endant admits ha ving made  no p ayment on the note and off ers no e xcuse that w ould be  recognizab le as a reason not to p ay. There is no reason to ha ve  a trial, and the c ourt should grant summary judgment.  3.3.2    Disc overy  If there is a f actual dispute, the c ase will usually in volve some  degre e of disc overy, where each p arty tries to get as much  information out of the other p arty as the rules allo w. Until the  1940s, when disc overy be came p art of civil proc edure rules, a  lawsuit w as fre quently a game in which each p arty hid as much  information as possib le and trie d to surprise the other p arty in  court.  Beginning with a change in the F ederal Rules of Civil  Proc edure adopte d b y the Supreme Court in 1938 and  subse quently f ollowed by man y of the states, the p arties are  entitle d to learn the f acts of the c ase bef ore trial. The b asic idea  is to help the p arties determine what the evidenc e might be,  who the potential witnesses are, and what spe cific issues are  relev ant. Disc overy c an proc eed by sev eral methods. A p arty  reasonab le pe ople would disagre e. Summary judgment is a final  order, and it is appealab le. 112  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "amount a warde d to the winning p arty. In an appeal, the \nappellant aims to sho w that there w as some prejudicial error \ncommitte d by the trial judge. There will be errors, of c ourse, \nbut the errors must be signific ant (i. e., not harmless). The b asic \nidea is f or an appellate c ourt to ensure that a reasonab ly fair \ntrial w as pro vide d to both sides. Enf orcement of the c ourt\u2019s \njudgment\u2014an a ward of money , an injunction\u2014is usually \nstayed (postpone d) until the appellate c ourt has rule d. As \nnote d earlier, the p arty making the appeal is c alled the \nappellant, and the p arty def ending the judgment is the appelle e \n(or in some c ourts, the petitioner and the respondent). \nDuring the trial, the losing p arty ma y ha ve obje cted to \ncertain proc edural de cisions b y the judge. In c ompiling a \nrecord on appeal, the appellant ne eds to sho w the appellate \ncourt some e xamp les of mistakes made b y the judge\u2014f or \nexamp le, ha ving errone ously admitte d evidenc e, ha ving f ailed \nto admit proper evidenc e that should ha ve be en admitte d, or \nhaving wrongly instructe d the jury . The appellate c ourt must \ndetermine if those mistakes w ere serious enough to amount to \nprejudicial error. \nAppellate and trial proc edures are diff erent. The appellate \ncourt does not hear witnesses or ac cept evidenc e. It reviews the \nrecord of the c ase\u2014the transc ript of the witnesses \u2019 testimon y \nand the documents re ceived into evidenc e at trial\u2014to try to \nfind a legal error on a spe cific re quest of one or both of the \nparties. The p arties \u2019 lawyers prep are briefs (written statements \ncontaining the f acts in the c ase), the proc edural steps taken, COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  127",
-        "page_label": "134",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"record of the case\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"determines\", \"legal error\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"considers\", \"specific request of parties\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"enforces\", \"court's judgment\"), (\"Appellant\", \"makes\", \"appeal\"), (\"Appellee\", \"defends\", \"judgment\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"hears\", \"witnesses\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"accepts\", \"evidence\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"receives\", \"transcript of testimonies\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"documents received as evidence\")",
-        "summary": "The song \"Here Comes the Boom\" was originally released by American rock band Nelly in 2002. It was featured in the soundtrack of the film \"The Longest Yard.\" The legal process of an appeal involves the appellant, who is the party making the appeal, and the appellee, who is the party defending the judgment. The appellate court reviews the record of the case, which includes the transcript of witnesses' testimonies and documents received as evidence during the trial, to determine if there were any legal errors. The court may enforce the judgment, such as awarding money or issuing an injunction, after the appellate court has ruled.",
-        "answer": "(\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"record of the case\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"determines\", \"legal error\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"considers\", \"specific request of parties\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"enforces\", \"court's judgment\"), (\"Appellant\", \"makes\", \"appeal\"), (\"Appellee\", \"defends\", \"judgment\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"hears\", \"witnesses\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"accepts\", \"evidence\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"receives\", \"transcript of testimonies\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"documents received as evidence\")",
-        "input_text": "amount a warde d to the winning p arty. In an appeal, the  appellant aims to sho w that there w as some prejudicial error  committe d by the trial judge. There will be errors, of c ourse,  but the errors must be signific ant (i. e., not harmless). The b asic  idea is f or an appellate c ourt to ensure that a reasonab ly fair  trial w as pro vide d to both sides. Enf orcement of the c ourt\u2019s  judgment\u2014an a ward of money , an injunction\u2014is usually  stayed (postpone d) until the appellate c ourt has rule d. As  note d earlier, the p arty making the appeal is c alled the  appellant, and the p arty def ending the judgment is the appelle e  (or in some c ourts, the petitioner and the respondent).  During the trial, the losing p arty ma y ha ve obje cted to  certain proc edural de cisions b y the judge. In c ompiling a  record on appeal, the appellant ne eds to sho w the appellate  court some e xamp les of mistakes made b y the judge\u2014f or  examp le, ha ving errone ously admitte d evidenc e, ha ving f ailed  to admit proper evidenc e that should ha ve be en admitte d, or  having wrongly instructe d the jury . The appellate c ourt must  determine if those mistakes w ere serious enough to amount to  prejudicial error.  Appellate and trial proc edures are diff erent. The appellate  court does not hear witnesses or ac cept evidenc e. It reviews the  record of the c ase\u2014the transc ript of the witnesses \u2019 testimon y  and the documents re ceived into evidenc e at trial\u2014to try to  find a legal error on a spe cific re quest of one or both of the  parties. The p arties \u2019 lawyers prep are briefs (written statements  containing the f acts in the c ase), the proc edural steps taken, COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  127"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "3.3    Motions and Disc overy \nLearning Objec tives \nAfter reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do \nthe following: \n1. Explain ho w a law suit can b e dismissed pr ior \nto any tr ial. \n2. Under stand t he basic pr inciples and pr actices \nof disc overy before a tr ial. \nThe early p hases of a civil action are characterize d by man y \ndifferent kinds of motions and a c omp lex proc ess of mutual \nfact-finding betw een the p arties that is kno wn as disc overy. A \nlawsuit will start with the p leadings15\n (comp laint and answ er in \nevery c ase, and in some c ases a c ounterclaim b y the def endant \nagainst the p laintiff and the p laintiff\u2019s rep ly to the def endant\u2019s \ncounterclaim). After the p leadings, the p arties ma y make \n15. The initial documents file d by parties in a la wsuit. COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  109",
-        "page_label": "116",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"many different kinds of motions\"), (\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"mutual fact-finding between the parties\", \"is known as\", \"discovery\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"a complex process of mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"lawsuit\", \"starts with\", \"pleadings\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"complaint\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"answer\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"counterclaim by the defendant against the plaintiff\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"plaintiff's reply to the defendant's counterclaim\"), (\"after the pleadings\", \"the parties may make\", \"motions\"), (\"initial documents filed by parties in a lawsuit\", \"are known as\", \"the initial documents\"), (\"motions\", \"are requests made by the parties\", \"for a judge to make a decision on a particular issue before the trial\")",
-        "summary": "The early phases of a civil action are characterized by many different kinds of motions and mutual fact-finding between the parties, which is known as discovery. A lawsuit starts with pleadings, which include the complaint and the answer. In some cases, a counterclaim by the defendant against the plaintiff may be included, followed by the plaintiff's reply to the defendant's counterclaim. After the pleadings, the parties may make motions. The initial documents filed by parties in a lawsuit are known as the initial documents. Discovery involves a complex process of mutual fact-finding between the parties, including the exchange of information and evidence. Motions are requests made by the parties for a judge to make a decision on a particular issue before the trial.",
-        "answer": "(\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"many different kinds of motions\"), (\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"mutual fact-finding between the parties\", \"is known as\", \"discovery\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"a complex process of mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"lawsuit\", \"starts with\", \"pleadings\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"complaint\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"answer\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"counterclaim by the defendant against the plaintiff\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"plaintiff's reply to the defendant's counterclaim\"), (\"after the pleadings\", \"the parties may make\", \"motions\"), (\"initial documents filed by parties in a lawsuit\", \"are known as\", \"the initial documents\"), (\"motions\", \"are requests made by the parties\", \"for a judge to make a decision on a particular issue before the trial\")",
-        "input_text": "3.3    Motions and Disc overy  Learning Objec tives  After reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do  the following:  1. Explain ho w a law suit can b e dismissed pr ior  to any tr ial.  2. Under stand t he basic pr inciples and pr actices  of disc overy before a tr ial.  The early p hases of a civil action are characterize d by man y  different kinds of motions and a c omp lex proc ess of mutual  fact-finding betw een the p arties that is kno wn as disc overy. A  lawsuit will start with the p leadings15  (comp laint and answ er in  every c ase, and in some c ases a c ounterclaim b y the def endant  against the p laintiff and the p laintiff\u2019s rep ly to the def endant\u2019s  counterclaim). After the p leadings, the p arties ma y make  15. The initial documents file d by parties in a la wsuit. COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  109"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "the f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction o ver the c ase. \nBut f ederal c ourts will also ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction \nover certain c ases that ha ve only a state-b ased cause of action; \nthose c ases are ones in which the p laintiff(s) and the \ndefendant(s) are from diff erent states and the amount in \ncontro versy is more than $75,000. State c ourts c an ha ve subje ct \nmatter jurisdiction o ver certain c ases that ha ve only a f ederal-\nbased cause of action. The Supreme Court has no w made clear \nthat state c ourts ha ve concurrent jurisdiction13\n of an y federal \ncause of action unless Congress has giv en exclusiv e jurisdiction \nto federal c ourts. \nIn short, a c ase with a f ederal question c an be often be heard \nin either state or f ederal c ourt, and a c ase that has p arties with a \ndiversity of citizenship c an be heard in state c ourts or in f ederal \ncourts where the tests of c omp lete div ersity and amount in \ncontro versy are met. \nWhether a c ase will be heard in a state c ourt or mo ved to \na federal c ourt will depend on the p arties. If a p laintiff files a \ncase in state trial c ourt where c oncurrent jurisdiction app lies, \na def endant ma y (or ma y not) ask that the c ase be remo ved to \nfederal district c ourt. \n13. When both state and f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction \nof a c ase, there is c oncurrent jurisdiction. Only one c ourt will hear \nthe c ase betw een the p arties and will hear all c auses of action, \nwhether b ased on state or f ederal la w. 98  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "105",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"the case\"), (\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a state-based cause of action\"), (\"State courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Supreme Court\", \"has made clear\", \"state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over any federal cause of action unless Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"either state or federal court\"), (\"Diversity cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts or federal courts where the tests of complete diversity and amount in controversy are met\"), (\"Case\", \"will\", \"be determined by the parties\"), (\"Plaintiff\", \"can file a case in\", \"state trial court where concurrent jurisdiction applies\"), (\"Defendant\", \"may or may not ask\", \"for the case to be removed to federal district court\"), (\"State and federal courts\", \"have concurrent jurisdiction over a case\", \"when both have subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"Congress\", \"can give\", \"exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"State courts\", \"can hear\", \"cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts under certain conditions\")",
-        "summary": "The Federal Courts have subject matter jurisdiction over the case, but they also have subject matter jurisdiction over certain cases that have only a state-based cause of action, such as those with differing state citizenship among the parties and an amount in controversy over $75,000. State courts also have subject matter jurisdiction over certain cases with only a federal-based cause of action. The Supreme Court has made it clear that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over any federal cause of action unless Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts. Federal question cases can often be heard in either state or federal court, and diversity cases can be heard in state courts or federal courts where the tests of complete diversity and amount in controversy are met. The determination of whether a case will be heard in a state court or moved to a federal court depends on the parties involved and the criteria for concurrent jurisdiction. If a plaintiff files a case in a state trial court where concurrent jurisdiction applies, a defendant may (or may not) ask that the case be removed to a federal district court. When both state and federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a case, there is concurrent jurisdiction. Only one court will hear the case between the parties and will hear all causes of action, whether based on state or federal law.",
-        "answer": "(\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"the case\"), (\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a state-based cause of action\"), (\"State courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Supreme Court\", \"has made clear\", \"state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over any federal cause of action unless Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"either state or federal court\"), (\"Diversity cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts or federal courts where the tests of complete diversity and amount in controversy are met\"), (\"Case\", \"will\", \"be determined by the parties\"), (\"Plaintiff\", \"can file a case in\", \"state trial court where concurrent jurisdiction applies\"), (\"Defendant\", \"may or may not ask\", \"for the case to be removed to federal district court\"), (\"State and federal courts\", \"have concurrent jurisdiction over a case\", \"when both have subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"Congress\", \"can give\", \"exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"State courts\", \"can hear\", \"cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts under certain conditions\")",
-        "input_text": "the f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction o ver the c ase.  But f ederal c ourts will also ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction  over certain c ases that ha ve only a state-b ased cause of action;  those c ases are ones in which the p laintiff(s) and the  defendant(s) are from diff erent states and the amount in  contro versy is more than $75,000. State c ourts c an ha ve subje ct  matter jurisdiction o ver certain c ases that ha ve only a f ederal- based cause of action. The Supreme Court has no w made clear  that state c ourts ha ve concurrent jurisdiction13  of an y federal  cause of action unless Congress has giv en exclusiv e jurisdiction  to federal c ourts.  In short, a c ase with a f ederal question c an be often be heard  in either state or f ederal c ourt, and a c ase that has p arties with a  diversity of citizenship c an be heard in state c ourts or in f ederal  courts where the tests of c omp lete div ersity and amount in  contro versy are met.  Whether a c ase will be heard in a state c ourt or mo ved to  a federal c ourt will depend on the p arties. If a p laintiff files a  case in state trial c ourt where c oncurrent jurisdiction app lies,  a def endant ma y (or ma y not) ask that the c ase be remo ved to  federal district c ourt.  13. When both state and f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction  of a c ase, there is c oncurrent jurisdiction. Only one c ourt will hear  the c ase betw een the p arties and will hear all c auses of action,  whether b ased on state or f ederal la w. 98  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "may serv e an interrogatory on his adv ersary\u2014a written re quest \nfor answ ers to spe cific questions. Or a p arty ma y depose the \nother p arty or a witness. A deposition is a liv e question-and-\nansw er session at which the witness answ ers questions put to \nhim b y one of the p arties \u2019 lawyers. His answ ers are re corde d \nverbatim and ma y be use d at trial. E ach p arty is also entitle d \nto inspe ct boo ks, documents, re cords, and other p hysical items \nin the possession of the other. This is a bro ad right, as it is \nnot limite d to just evidenc e that is admissib le at trial. Disc overy \nof p hysical evidenc e means that a p laintiff ma y inspe ct a \ncomp any\u2019s ac counts, customer lists, assets, profit-and-loss \nstatements, b alanc e she ets, engine ering and quality-c ontro l \nreports, sales reports, and virtually an y other document. \nThe la wyers, not the \ncourt, run the disc overy \nproc ess. F or e xamp le, one \nparty simp ly makes a written \ndemand, stating the time at \nwhich the deposition will \ntake p lace or the type of \ndocuments it wishes to \ninspe ct and make c opies of. \nA p arty unreasonab ly \nresisting disc overy methods \n(whether depositions, \nwritten interrogatories, or \nrequests f or documents) c an be challenge d, ho wever, and COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  113",
-        "page_label": "120",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"global health crisis\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"significant economic disruption\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"believed to have originated in\", \"seafood market in Wuhan, China\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"spread rapidly\", \"around the world\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"widespread lockdowns\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"social distancing measures\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"serving interrogatories\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"deposing the other party or a witness\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"inspecting books, documents, records, and other physical items\"), (\"Legal process\", \"broad right\", \"not limited to just admissible evidence at trial\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"inspecting a company's accounts\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"customer lists\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"assets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"profit-and-loss statements\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"balance sheets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"engineering and quality-control reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"sales reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"virtually any other document\"), (\"Legal process\", \"run by\", \"lawyers\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"written demands for depositions\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"requests for documents\")",
-        "summary": "The COVID-19 pandemic, which is believed to have originated in a seafood market in Wuhan, China, caused a global health crisis and significant economic disruption in 2020. The virus spread rapidly around the world, leading to widespread lockdowns and social distancing measures. In the legal process, parties may serve interrogatories, depose the other party or a witness, and inspect books, documents, records, and other physical items in the possession of the other party. This is a broad right, as it is not limited to just admissible evidence at trial. Discovery of physical evidence may include inspecting a company's accounts, customer lists, assets, profit-and-loss statements, balance sheets, engineering and quality-control reports, sales reports, and virtually any other document. The lawyers, not the court, run the discovery process, which may involve written demands for depositions or requests for documents.",
-        "answer": "(\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"global health crisis\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"significant economic disruption\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"believed to have originated in\", \"seafood market in Wuhan, China\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"spread rapidly\", \"around the world\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"widespread lockdowns\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"social distancing measures\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"serving interrogatories\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"deposing the other party or a witness\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"inspecting books, documents, records, and other physical items\"), (\"Legal process\", \"broad right\", \"not limited to just admissible evidence at trial\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"inspecting a company's accounts\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"customer lists\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"assets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"profit-and-loss statements\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"balance sheets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"engineering and quality-control reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"sales reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"virtually any other document\"), (\"Legal process\", \"run by\", \"lawyers\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"written demands for depositions\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"requests for documents\")",
-        "input_text": "may serv e an interrogatory on his adv ersary\u2014a written re quest  for answ ers to spe cific questions. Or a p arty ma y depose the  other p arty or a witness. A deposition is a liv e question-and- answ er session at which the witness answ ers questions put to  him b y one of the p arties \u2019 lawyers. His answ ers are re corde d  verbatim and ma y be use d at trial. E ach p arty is also entitle d  to inspe ct boo ks, documents, re cords, and other p hysical items  in the possession of the other. This is a bro ad right, as it is  not limite d to just evidenc e that is admissib le at trial. Disc overy  of p hysical evidenc e means that a p laintiff ma y inspe ct a  comp any\u2019s ac counts, customer lists, assets, profit-and-loss  statements, b alanc e she ets, engine ering and quality-c ontro l  reports, sales reports, and virtually an y other document.  The la wyers, not the  court, run the disc overy  proc ess. F or e xamp le, one  party simp ly makes a written  demand, stating the time at  which the deposition will  take p lace or the type of  documents it wishes to  inspe ct and make c opies of.  A p arty unreasonab ly  resisting disc overy methods  (whether depositions,  written interrogatories, or  requests f or documents) c an be challenge d, ho wever, and COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  113"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "judges are often brought into the proc ess to push reluctant \nparties to make more disclosure or to prote ct a p arty from \nirrelev ant or unreasonab le disc overy re quests. F or examp le, the \nparty re ceiving the disc overy re quest c an app ly to the c ourt \nfor a prote ctive order if it c an sho w that the demand is f or \nprivilege d material (e.g., a p arty\u2019s la wyers\u2019 records are not open \nfor inspe ction) or that the demand w as made to harass the \nopponent. In c omp lex cases betw een c omp anies, the disc overy \nof documents c an run into tens of millions of p ages and c an \ntake y ears. Depositions c an c onsume da ys or ev en w eeks of an \nexecutiv e\u2019s time. \nKey Takeaway \nMany cases ne ver ge t to trial. T hey are disp osed o f \nby mo tions t o dismiss or ar e settled \nafter extensiv e disc overy mak es clear to the par ties \nthe strengths and w eaknesses o f the \nparties to the dispu te. 114  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "121",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"judges\", \"are often brought into\", \"process\"), (\"process\", \"purpose\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"reluctant parties\", \"to make more disclosure\", \"process\"), (\"party\", \"can apply to court\", \"protective order\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand is for privileged material\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand was made to harass opponent\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"tens of millions of pages\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"takes years\"), (\"depositions\", \"consume\", \"days or weeks of executive's time\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"disposed of by motions to dismiss\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"settled after extensive discovery\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"protect party from irrelevant or unreasonable discovery requests\"), (\"protective order\", \"applied for by party\", \"show demand is for privileged material or harassment\"), (\"extensive discovery\", \"makes clear\", \"strengths and weaknesses of parties\")",
-        "summary": "The process of discovery in legal cases often involves judges being brought into the process to push reluctant parties into making more disclosure or to protect a party from irrelevant or unreasonable discovery requests. In complex cases, the discovery of documents can involve tens of millions of pages and take years to complete. Depositions can consume days or weeks of an executive's time. Many cases never make it to trial, instead being disposed of by motions to dismiss or settled after extensive discovery. Extensive discovery can make the strengths and weaknesses of the parties involved clear, and a protective order can be applied for by a party if they can show that the demand is for privileged material or was made to harass the opponent.",
-        "answer": "(\"judges\", \"are often brought into\", \"process\"), (\"process\", \"purpose\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"reluctant parties\", \"to make more disclosure\", \"process\"), (\"party\", \"can apply to court\", \"protective order\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand is for privileged material\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand was made to harass opponent\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"tens of millions of pages\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"takes years\"), (\"depositions\", \"consume\", \"days or weeks of executive's time\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"disposed of by motions to dismiss\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"settled after extensive discovery\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"protect party from irrelevant or unreasonable discovery requests\"), (\"protective order\", \"applied for by party\", \"show demand is for privileged material or harassment\"), (\"extensive discovery\", \"makes clear\", \"strengths and weaknesses of parties\")",
-        "input_text": "judges are often brought into the proc ess to push reluctant  parties to make more disclosure or to prote ct a p arty from  irrelev ant or unreasonab le disc overy re quests. F or examp le, the  party re ceiving the disc overy re quest c an app ly to the c ourt  for a prote ctive order if it c an sho w that the demand is f or  privilege d material (e.g., a p arty\u2019s la wyers\u2019 records are not open  for inspe ction) or that the demand w as made to harass the  opponent. In c omp lex cases betw een c omp anies, the disc overy  of documents c an run into tens of millions of p ages and c an  take y ears. Depositions c an c onsume da ys or ev en w eeks of an  executiv e\u2019s time.  Key Takeaway  Many cases ne ver ge t to trial. T hey are disp osed o f  by mo tions t o dismiss or ar e settled  after extensiv e disc overy mak es clear to the par ties  the strengths and w eaknesses o f the  parties to the dispu te. 114  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "judge who de cides that a dire cted verdict is appropriate will \nusually w ait to se e what the jury\u2019s v erdict is. If it is f avorab le \nto the p arty the judge thinks should win, she c an rely on that \nverdict. If the v erdict is f or the other p arty, he c an grant the \nmotion f or judgment n. o.v. This is a saf er w ay to proc eed \nbecause if the judge is rev ersed on appeal, a new trial is not \nnecessary . The jury\u2019s v erdict alw ays can be restore d, whereas \nwithout a jury v erdict (as happens when a dire cted verdict is \ngrante d bef ore the c ase goes to the jury), the entire c ase must be \npresente d to a new jury . Ferlito v . Johnson & Jo hnson (Se ction \n3.9 \u201cCases \u201d) illustrates the judgment n. o.v. proc ess in a c ase \nwhere the judge allo wed the c ase to go to a jury that w as overly \nsymp athetic to the p laintiffs. \nKey Takeaway \nThe purp ose o f a tr ial judge is t o ensur e jus tice to all \nparties to the law suit. The judge pr esides , instructs \nthe jur y, and may limit who t estifies and what t hey \nhave come to . Judgment n. o.v. rev erses the v erdict and a wards \njudgment to the p arty against whom the jury\u2019s v erdict w as made. 124  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "131",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Trial judge\", \"purpose\", \"ensure justice to all parties involved in the lawsuit\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"presides over\", \"trial\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"instructions\", \"jury\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"limits\", \"testimonies\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"may limit\", \"what they have come to present\"), (\"Judgment n.o.v.\", \"process\", \"reverses the verdict and awards judgment to the party against whom the jury's verdict was made\"), (\"Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson\", \"illustrates\", \"judgment n.o.v. process\")",
-        "summary": "The purpose of a trial judge is to ensure justice to all parties involved in the lawsuit. They preside over the trial, instruct the jury, and may limit who testifies and what they have come to present. The judgment n.o.v. process, as illustrated in the case \"Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson,\" reverses the verdict and awards judgment to the party against whom the jury's verdict was made. The song \"Here Comes the Boom\" was originally released by American rock band Nelly in 2002 and was featured in the soundtrack of the film \"The Longest Yard.\" The song \"Here Comes the Boom\" was also released by American rock band Nelly.",
-        "answer": "(\"Trial judge\", \"purpose\", \"ensure justice to all parties involved in the lawsuit\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"presides over\", \"trial\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"instructions\", \"jury\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"limits\", \"testimonies\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"may limit\", \"what they have come to present\"), (\"Judgment n.o.v.\", \"process\", \"reverses the verdict and awards judgment to the party against whom the jury's verdict was made\"), (\"Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson\", \"illustrates\", \"judgment n.o.v. process\")",
-        "input_text": "judge who de cides that a dire cted verdict is appropriate will  usually w ait to se e what the jury\u2019s v erdict is. If it is f avorab le  to the p arty the judge thinks should win, she c an rely on that  verdict. If the v erdict is f or the other p arty, he c an grant the  motion f or judgment n. o.v. This is a saf er w ay to proc eed  because if the judge is rev ersed on appeal, a new trial is not  necessary . The jury\u2019s v erdict alw ays can be restore d, whereas  without a jury v erdict (as happens when a dire cted verdict is  grante d bef ore the c ase goes to the jury), the entire c ase must be  presente d to a new jury . Ferlito v . Johnson & Jo hnson (Se ction  3.9 \u201cCases \u201d) illustrates the judgment n. o.v. proc ess in a c ase  where the judge allo wed the c ase to go to a jury that w as overly  symp athetic to the p laintiffs.  Key Takeaway  The purp ose o f a tr ial judge is t o ensur e jus tice to all  parties to the law suit. The judge pr esides , instructs  the jur y, and may limit who t estifies and what t hey  have come to . Judgment n. o.v. rev erses the v erdict and a wards  judgment to the p arty against whom the jury\u2019s v erdict w as made. 124  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "Alamo c annot c ome to terms. He realizes, ho wever, that he has \nagre ed to hear the dispute with Alamo in a spe cific c ourt in \nSan Antonio , Texas. In the absenc e of fraud or b ad faith, an y \ncourt in the Unite d States is likely to up hold the choic e-of-\nform clause and re quire Haro ld (or his insuranc e comp any) to \nlitigate in San Antonio , Texas. \nKey Takeaway \nThere are two court systems in t he Unit ed States. It \nis imp ortant t o kno w whic h system\u2014 the state court \nsystem or t he feder al court system\u2014has t he p ower \nto he ar and dec ide a par ticular case. Onc e that is \nestablished, t he C onstitution c omp els an inquir y to \nmak e sur e that no c ourt extends it s reach unf airly to \nout-of-state resident s. The ques tion o f personal \njurisdic tion is a ques tion o f fairness and due pr ocess \nto nonr esident s. 108  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "115",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Alamo\", \"realized\", \"agreed to hear the dispute in a specific court in San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"Haro ld\", \"required to litigate\", \"San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"importance\", \"knowing\", \"which court system has the power to hear a particular case\")",
-        "summary": "The Alamo, a historical site in Texas, realized that they agreed to hear their dispute with He Realizes in a specific court in San Antonio, Texas. However, any court in the United States is likely to uphold the choice-of-form clause and require Haro ld (or their insurance company) to litigate in San Antonio, Texas. In the United States, there are two court systems: state and federal, both of which have the power to hear and decide a particular case. The Constitution compels an inquiry into whether any court extends its reach unfairly to out-of-state residents. Nonresidents are entitled to fairness and due process, which is a question of personal jurisdiction.",
-        "answer": "(\"Alamo\", \"realized\", \"agreed to hear the dispute in a specific court in San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"Haro ld\", \"required to litigate\", \"San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"importance\", \"knowing\", \"which court system has the power to hear a particular case\")",
-        "input_text": "Alamo c annot c ome to terms. He realizes, ho wever, that he has  agre ed to hear the dispute with Alamo in a spe cific c ourt in  San Antonio , Texas. In the absenc e of fraud or b ad faith, an y  court in the Unite d States is likely to up hold the choic e-of- form clause and re quire Haro ld (or his insuranc e comp any) to  litigate in San Antonio , Texas.  Key Takeaway  There are two court systems in t he Unit ed States. It  is imp ortant t o kno w whic h system\u2014 the state court  system or t he feder al court system\u2014has t he p ower  to he ar and dec ide a par ticular case. Onc e that is  established, t he C onstitution c omp els an inquir y to  mak e sur e that no c ourt extends it s reach unf airly to  out-of-state resident s. The ques tion o f personal  jurisdic tion is a ques tion o f fairness and due pr ocess  to nonr esident s. 108  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "defendant will often den y all the allegations of the c omp laint \nor will admit to c ertain of its allegations and den y others. \nA comp laint and subse quent p leadings are usually quite \ngeneral and giv e little detail. Cases c an be de cide d on the \npleadings alone in the f ollowing situations: (1) If the def endant \nfails to answ er the c omp laint, the c ourt c an enter a def ault \njudgment, a warding the p laintiff what he se eks. (2) The \ndefendant c an mo ve to dismiss the c omp laint on the grounds \nthat the p laintiff f ailed to \u201cstate a claim on which relief c an \nbe grante d,\u201d or on the b asis that there is no subje ct matter \njurisdiction f or the c ourt chosen b y the p laintiff, or on the \nbasis that there is no personal jurisdiction o ver the def endant. \nThe def endant is sa ying, in eff ect, that ev en if all the p laintiff\u2019s \nallegations are true, they do not amount to a legal claim that \ncan be heard b y the c ourt. F or e xamp le, a claim that the \ndefendant induc ed a w oman to stop dating the p laintiff (a \nso-called alienation of aff ections c ause of action) is no longer \nactionab le in US state c ourts, and an y court will dismiss the \ncomp laint without an y further proc eedings. (This type of \ndismissal is oc casionally still c alled a demurrer.) \nA third kind of dismissal c an take p lace on a motion f or \nsummary judgment.17\n If there is no triab le question of f act \n17. As in a dire cted verdict, when a judge grants summary judgment, she \nhas c onclude d that there are no matters of la w or f act on which COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  111",
-        "page_label": "118",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"defendant\", \"often\", \"deny allegations of the complaint\"), (\"defendant\", \"admit to\", \"certain allegations\"), (\"complaint\", \"usually\", \"general and give little detail\"), (\"cases\", \"can be decided on the pleadings alone\", \"following situations\"), (\"defendant\", \"fails to answer the complaint\", \"court enters default judgment\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"grounds\"), (\"plaintiff\", \"fails to\", \"state a claim on which relief can be granted\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no personal jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"says\", \"all plaintiff's allegations do not amount to a legal claim\"), (\"alienation of affections cause of action\", \"no longer actionable\", \"US state courts\"), (\"court\", \"dismisses the complaint\", \"no further proceedings\"), (\"motion for summary judgment\", \"can take place\", \"no trial question of law or fact\"), (\"court\", \"grants summary judgment\", \"no matters of law or fact\")",
-        "summary": "In legal cases, defendants often deny allegations of the complaint, while admitting to certain allegations. Complaints are usually general and provide little detail. Cases can be decided on the pleadings alone in certain situations. If a defendant fails to answer the complaint, the court enters a default judgment. A defendant may move to dismiss the complaint based on grounds such as the plaintiff failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted, no subject matter jurisdiction, or no personal jurisdiction. A defendant may also argue that all of the plaintiff's allegations do not amount to a legal claim. The alienation of affections cause of action is no longer actionable in US state courts. If a court dismisses the complaint, there are no further proceedings. A motion for summary judgment can take place when there are no trial questions of law or fact. If the court grants summary judgment, there are no matters of law or fact remaining.",
-        "answer": "(\"defendant\", \"often\", \"deny allegations of the complaint\"), (\"defendant\", \"admit to\", \"certain allegations\"), (\"complaint\", \"usually\", \"general and give little detail\"), (\"cases\", \"can be decided on the pleadings alone\", \"following situations\"), (\"defendant\", \"fails to answer the complaint\", \"court enters default judgment\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"grounds\"), (\"plaintiff\", \"fails to\", \"state a claim on which relief can be granted\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no personal jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"says\", \"all plaintiff's allegations do not amount to a legal claim\"), (\"alienation of affections cause of action\", \"no longer actionable\", \"US state courts\"), (\"court\", \"dismisses the complaint\", \"no further proceedings\"), (\"motion for summary judgment\", \"can take place\", \"no trial question of law or fact\"), (\"court\", \"grants summary judgment\", \"no matters of law or fact\")",
-        "input_text": "defendant will often den y all the allegations of the c omp laint  or will admit to c ertain of its allegations and den y others.  A comp laint and subse quent p leadings are usually quite  general and giv e little detail. Cases c an be de cide d on the  pleadings alone in the f ollowing situations: (1) If the def endant  fails to answ er the c omp laint, the c ourt c an enter a def ault  judgment, a warding the p laintiff what he se eks. (2) The  defendant c an mo ve to dismiss the c omp laint on the grounds  that the p laintiff f ailed to \u201cstate a claim on which relief c an  be grante d,\u201d or on the b asis that there is no subje ct matter  jurisdiction f or the c ourt chosen b y the p laintiff, or on the  basis that there is no personal jurisdiction o ver the def endant.  The def endant is sa ying, in eff ect, that ev en if all the p laintiff\u2019s  allegations are true, they do not amount to a legal claim that  can be heard b y the c ourt. F or e xamp le, a claim that the  defendant induc ed a w oman to stop dating the p laintiff (a  so-called alienation of aff ections c ause of action) is no longer  actionab le in US state c ourts, and an y court will dismiss the  comp laint without an y further proc eedings. (This type of  dismissal is oc casionally still c alled a demurrer.)  A third kind of dismissal c an take p lace on a motion f or  summary judgment.17  If there is no triab le question of f act  17. As in a dire cted verdict, when a judge grants summary judgment, she  has c onclude d that there are no matters of la w or f act on which COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  111"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "3.4    The Pr etrial and T rial Phase \nLearning Objec tives \nAfter reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do \nthe following: \n1. Under stand ho w judges can push par ties int o \npretrial se ttlement . \n2. Explain t he me aning and use o f directed \nverdicts. \n3. Distinguish a dir ected verdict from a judgment \nn.o.v. (\u201cnotwithstanding t he v erdict\u201d). \nAfter c onsiderab le disc overy, one of the p arties ma y believ e \nthat there is no triab le issue of la w or f act f or the c ourt to \nconsider and ma y file a motion with the c ourt f or summary \njudgment. Unless it is v ery clear, the judge will den y a summary \njudgment motion, be cause that ends the c ase at the trial lev el; \nit is a \u201cfinal order\u201d in the c ase that tells the p laintiff \u201cno\u201d and \nleaves no room to bring another la wsuit against the def endant \nfor that p articular set of f acts (res judic ata). If the p laintiff COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  115",
-        "page_label": "122",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Judges\", \"can push parties\", \"into pretrial settlement\"), (\"Directed verdicts\", \"explain meaning and use of\", \"Directed verdict\"), (\"Directed verdict\", \"distinguish from\", \"judgment n.o.v.\"), (\"Res judicata\", \"refers to\", \"no room to bring another lawsuit\")",
-        "summary": "In the legal system, judges have the power to push parties into pretrial settlements. Directed verdicts are a tool used by judges to explain the meaning and use of directed verdicts, which are distinguished from judgments n.o.v. Summary judgment motions are a crucial aspect of the legal process, as judges will typically deny them unless the case is very clear. Summary judgment motions can end a case at the trial level, resulting in a final order. A final order tells the plaintiff that there is no room to bring another lawsuit against the defendant due to the concept of res judicata, meaning there is no room to bring another lawsuit.",
-        "answer": "(\"Judges\", \"can push parties\", \"into pretrial settlement\"), (\"Directed verdicts\", \"explain meaning and use of\", \"Directed verdict\"), (\"Directed verdict\", \"distinguish from\", \"judgment n.o.v.\"), (\"Res judicata\", \"refers to\", \"no room to bring another lawsuit\")",
-        "input_text": "3.4    The Pr etrial and T rial Phase  Learning Objec tives  After reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do  the following:  1. Under stand ho w judges can push par ties int o  pretrial se ttlement .  2. Explain t he me aning and use o f directed  verdicts.  3. Distinguish a dir ected verdict from a judgment  n.o.v. (\u201cnotwithstanding t he v erdict\u201d).  After c onsiderab le disc overy, one of the p arties ma y believ e  that there is no triab le issue of la w or f act f or the c ourt to  consider and ma y file a motion with the c ourt f or summary  judgment. Unless it is v ery clear, the judge will den y a summary  judgment motion, be cause that ends the c ase at the trial lev el;  it is a \u201cfinal order\u201d in the c ase that tells the p laintiff \u201cno\u201d and  leaves no room to bring another la wsuit against the def endant  for that p articular set of f acts (res judic ata). If the p laintiff COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  115"
-      }
-    ],
-    "signature_instructions": "\n    The task involves analyzing an input text to extract a Knowledge Graph (KG) represented by triples in the format (\"subject\", \"predicate\", \"object\"). Each triple should convey a specific fact or relationship derived from the text. \n\n    Your goal is to distill complex sentences into fundamental components, focusing on extracting succinct and atomic pieces of information. Instead of using entire sentences as triples, break down the information into the most granular facts possible. This process might involve decomposing a single sentence into multiple triples, each highlighting a distinct piece of information or relationship.\n\n    Be meticulous in identifying subjects, predicates, and objects, ensuring that each triple accurately reflects the relationships within the text. This extraction task does not require verifying the factual accuracy of the content; your primary objective is to transform the text into a structured format that accurately captures the key points and relationships presented.\n\n    ### Guidelines:\n    - Identify key entities and actions within the text as subjects and predicates.\n    - Distill complex information into multiple, atomic triples when necessary.\n    - Ensure that triples are independent and self-contained, conveying clear relationships.\n    - Avoid redundancy and ensure that each triple contributes unique information to the KG.\n    - triples format is a long string of ('subject', 'predicate', 'object'), ('subject', 'predicate', 'object'), ...\n    ",
-    "signature_prefix": "Triples:"
-  },
-  "kg2text": {
-    "lm": null,
-    "traces": [],
-    "train": [],
-    "demos": [
-      {
-        "text": "3.4    The Pr etrial and T rial Phase \nLearning Objec tives \nAfter reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do \nthe following: \n1. Under stand ho w judges can push par ties int o \npretrial se ttlement . \n2. Explain t he me aning and use o f directed \nverdicts. \n3. Distinguish a dir ected verdict from a judgment \nn.o.v. (\u201cnotwithstanding t he v erdict\u201d). \nAfter c onsiderab le disc overy, one of the p arties ma y believ e \nthat there is no triab le issue of la w or f act f or the c ourt to \nconsider and ma y file a motion with the c ourt f or summary \njudgment. Unless it is v ery clear, the judge will den y a summary \njudgment motion, be cause that ends the c ase at the trial lev el; \nit is a \u201cfinal order\u201d in the c ase that tells the p laintiff \u201cno\u201d and \nleaves no room to bring another la wsuit against the def endant \nfor that p articular set of f acts (res judic ata). If the p laintiff COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  115",
-        "page_label": "122",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Judges\", \"can push parties\", \"into pretrial settlement\"), (\"Directed verdicts\", \"explain meaning and use of\", \"Directed verdict\"), (\"Directed verdict\", \"distinguish from\", \"judgment n.o.v.\"), (\"Res judicata\", \"refers to\", \"no room to bring another lawsuit\")",
-        "summary": "In the legal system, judges have the power to push parties into pretrial settlements. Directed verdicts are a tool used by judges to explain the meaning and use of directed verdicts, which are distinguished from judgments n.o.v. Summary judgment motions are a crucial aspect of the legal process, as judges will typically deny them unless the case is very clear. Summary judgment motions can end a case at the trial level, resulting in a final order. A final order tells the plaintiff that there is no room to bring another lawsuit against the defendant due to the concept of res judicata, meaning there is no room to bring another lawsuit.",
-        "answer": "(\"Judges\", \"can push parties\", \"into pretrial settlement\"), (\"Directed verdicts\", \"explain meaning and use of\", \"Directed verdict\"), (\"Directed verdict\", \"distinguish from\", \"judgment n.o.v.\"), (\"Res judicata\", \"refers to\", \"no room to bring another lawsuit\")",
-        "input_text": "3.4    The Pr etrial and T rial Phase  Learning Objec tives  After reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do  the following:  1. Under stand ho w judges can push par ties int o  pretrial se ttlement .  2. Explain t he me aning and use o f directed  verdicts.  3. Distinguish a dir ected verdict from a judgment  n.o.v. (\u201cnotwithstanding t he v erdict\u201d).  After c onsiderab le disc overy, one of the p arties ma y believ e  that there is no triab le issue of la w or f act f or the c ourt to  consider and ma y file a motion with the c ourt f or summary  judgment. Unless it is v ery clear, the judge will den y a summary  judgment motion, be cause that ends the c ase at the trial lev el;  it is a \u201cfinal order\u201d in the c ase that tells the p laintiff \u201cno\u201d and  leaves no room to bring another la wsuit against the def endant  for that p articular set of f acts (res judic ata). If the p laintiff COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  115"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "the f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction o ver the c ase. \nBut f ederal c ourts will also ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction \nover certain c ases that ha ve only a state-b ased cause of action; \nthose c ases are ones in which the p laintiff(s) and the \ndefendant(s) are from diff erent states and the amount in \ncontro versy is more than $75,000. State c ourts c an ha ve subje ct \nmatter jurisdiction o ver certain c ases that ha ve only a f ederal-\nbased cause of action. The Supreme Court has no w made clear \nthat state c ourts ha ve concurrent jurisdiction13\n of an y federal \ncause of action unless Congress has giv en exclusiv e jurisdiction \nto federal c ourts. \nIn short, a c ase with a f ederal question c an be often be heard \nin either state or f ederal c ourt, and a c ase that has p arties with a \ndiversity of citizenship c an be heard in state c ourts or in f ederal \ncourts where the tests of c omp lete div ersity and amount in \ncontro versy are met. \nWhether a c ase will be heard in a state c ourt or mo ved to \na federal c ourt will depend on the p arties. If a p laintiff files a \ncase in state trial c ourt where c oncurrent jurisdiction app lies, \na def endant ma y (or ma y not) ask that the c ase be remo ved to \nfederal district c ourt. \n13. When both state and f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction \nof a c ase, there is c oncurrent jurisdiction. Only one c ourt will hear \nthe c ase betw een the p arties and will hear all c auses of action, \nwhether b ased on state or f ederal la w. 98  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "105",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"the case\"), (\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a state-based cause of action\"), (\"State courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Supreme Court\", \"has made clear\", \"state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over any federal cause of action unless Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"either state or federal court\"), (\"Diversity cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts or federal courts where the tests of complete diversity and amount in controversy are met\"), (\"Case\", \"will\", \"be determined by the parties\"), (\"Plaintiff\", \"can file a case in\", \"state trial court where concurrent jurisdiction applies\"), (\"Defendant\", \"may or may not ask\", \"for the case to be removed to federal district court\"), (\"State and federal courts\", \"have concurrent jurisdiction over a case\", \"when both have subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"Congress\", \"can give\", \"exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"State courts\", \"can hear\", \"cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts under certain conditions\")",
-        "summary": "The Federal Courts have subject matter jurisdiction over the case, but they also have subject matter jurisdiction over certain cases that have only a state-based cause of action, such as those with differing state citizenship among the parties and an amount in controversy over $75,000. State courts also have subject matter jurisdiction over certain cases with only a federal-based cause of action. The Supreme Court has made it clear that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over any federal cause of action unless Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts. Federal question cases can often be heard in either state or federal court, and diversity cases can be heard in state courts or federal courts where the tests of complete diversity and amount in controversy are met. The determination of whether a case will be heard in a state court or moved to a federal court depends on the parties involved and the criteria for concurrent jurisdiction. If a plaintiff files a case in a state trial court where concurrent jurisdiction applies, a defendant may (or may not) ask that the case be removed to a federal district court. When both state and federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a case, there is concurrent jurisdiction. Only one court will hear the case between the parties and will hear all causes of action, whether based on state or federal law.",
-        "answer": "(\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"the case\"), (\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a state-based cause of action\"), (\"State courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Supreme Court\", \"has made clear\", \"state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over any federal cause of action unless Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"either state or federal court\"), (\"Diversity cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts or federal courts where the tests of complete diversity and amount in controversy are met\"), (\"Case\", \"will\", \"be determined by the parties\"), (\"Plaintiff\", \"can file a case in\", \"state trial court where concurrent jurisdiction applies\"), (\"Defendant\", \"may or may not ask\", \"for the case to be removed to federal district court\"), (\"State and federal courts\", \"have concurrent jurisdiction over a case\", \"when both have subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"Congress\", \"can give\", \"exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"State courts\", \"can hear\", \"cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts under certain conditions\")",
-        "input_text": "the f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction o ver the c ase.  But f ederal c ourts will also ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction  over certain c ases that ha ve only a state-b ased cause of action;  those c ases are ones in which the p laintiff(s) and the  defendant(s) are from diff erent states and the amount in  contro versy is more than $75,000. State c ourts c an ha ve subje ct  matter jurisdiction o ver certain c ases that ha ve only a f ederal- based cause of action. The Supreme Court has no w made clear  that state c ourts ha ve concurrent jurisdiction13  of an y federal  cause of action unless Congress has giv en exclusiv e jurisdiction  to federal c ourts.  In short, a c ase with a f ederal question c an be often be heard  in either state or f ederal c ourt, and a c ase that has p arties with a  diversity of citizenship c an be heard in state c ourts or in f ederal  courts where the tests of c omp lete div ersity and amount in  contro versy are met.  Whether a c ase will be heard in a state c ourt or mo ved to  a federal c ourt will depend on the p arties. If a p laintiff files a  case in state trial c ourt where c oncurrent jurisdiction app lies,  a def endant ma y (or ma y not) ask that the c ase be remo ved to  federal district c ourt.  13. When both state and f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction  of a c ase, there is c oncurrent jurisdiction. Only one c ourt will hear  the c ase betw een the p arties and will hear all c auses of action,  whether b ased on state or f ederal la w. 98  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "3.3    Motions and Disc overy \nLearning Objec tives \nAfter reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do \nthe following: \n1. Explain ho w a law suit can b e dismissed pr ior \nto any tr ial. \n2. Under stand t he basic pr inciples and pr actices \nof disc overy before a tr ial. \nThe early p hases of a civil action are characterize d by man y \ndifferent kinds of motions and a c omp lex proc ess of mutual \nfact-finding betw een the p arties that is kno wn as disc overy. A \nlawsuit will start with the p leadings15\n (comp laint and answ er in \nevery c ase, and in some c ases a c ounterclaim b y the def endant \nagainst the p laintiff and the p laintiff\u2019s rep ly to the def endant\u2019s \ncounterclaim). After the p leadings, the p arties ma y make \n15. The initial documents file d by parties in a la wsuit. COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  109",
-        "page_label": "116",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"many different kinds of motions\"), (\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"mutual fact-finding between the parties\", \"is known as\", \"discovery\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"a complex process of mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"lawsuit\", \"starts with\", \"pleadings\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"complaint\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"answer\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"counterclaim by the defendant against the plaintiff\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"plaintiff's reply to the defendant's counterclaim\"), (\"after the pleadings\", \"the parties may make\", \"motions\"), (\"initial documents filed by parties in a lawsuit\", \"are known as\", \"the initial documents\"), (\"motions\", \"are requests made by the parties\", \"for a judge to make a decision on a particular issue before the trial\")",
-        "summary": "The early phases of a civil action are characterized by many different kinds of motions and mutual fact-finding between the parties, which is known as discovery. A lawsuit starts with pleadings, which include the complaint and the answer. In some cases, a counterclaim by the defendant against the plaintiff may be included, followed by the plaintiff's reply to the defendant's counterclaim. After the pleadings, the parties may make motions. The initial documents filed by parties in a lawsuit are known as the initial documents. Discovery involves a complex process of mutual fact-finding between the parties, including the exchange of information and evidence. Motions are requests made by the parties for a judge to make a decision on a particular issue before the trial.",
-        "answer": "(\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"many different kinds of motions\"), (\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"mutual fact-finding between the parties\", \"is known as\", \"discovery\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"a complex process of mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"lawsuit\", \"starts with\", \"pleadings\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"complaint\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"answer\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"counterclaim by the defendant against the plaintiff\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"plaintiff's reply to the defendant's counterclaim\"), (\"after the pleadings\", \"the parties may make\", \"motions\"), (\"initial documents filed by parties in a lawsuit\", \"are known as\", \"the initial documents\"), (\"motions\", \"are requests made by the parties\", \"for a judge to make a decision on a particular issue before the trial\")",
-        "input_text": "3.3    Motions and Disc overy  Learning Objec tives  After reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do  the following:  1. Explain ho w a law suit can b e dismissed pr ior  to any tr ial.  2. Under stand t he basic pr inciples and pr actices  of disc overy before a tr ial.  The early p hases of a civil action are characterize d by man y  different kinds of motions and a c omp lex proc ess of mutual  fact-finding betw een the p arties that is kno wn as disc overy. A  lawsuit will start with the p leadings15  (comp laint and answ er in  every c ase, and in some c ases a c ounterclaim b y the def endant  against the p laintiff and the p laintiff\u2019s rep ly to the def endant\u2019s  counterclaim). After the p leadings, the p arties ma y make  15. The initial documents file d by parties in a la wsuit. COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  109"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "Alamo c annot c ome to terms. He realizes, ho wever, that he has \nagre ed to hear the dispute with Alamo in a spe cific c ourt in \nSan Antonio , Texas. In the absenc e of fraud or b ad faith, an y \ncourt in the Unite d States is likely to up hold the choic e-of-\nform clause and re quire Haro ld (or his insuranc e comp any) to \nlitigate in San Antonio , Texas. \nKey Takeaway \nThere are two court systems in t he Unit ed States. It \nis imp ortant t o kno w whic h system\u2014 the state court \nsystem or t he feder al court system\u2014has t he p ower \nto he ar and dec ide a par ticular case. Onc e that is \nestablished, t he C onstitution c omp els an inquir y to \nmak e sur e that no c ourt extends it s reach unf airly to \nout-of-state resident s. The ques tion o f personal \njurisdic tion is a ques tion o f fairness and due pr ocess \nto nonr esident s. 108  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "115",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Alamo\", \"realized\", \"agreed to hear the dispute in a specific court in San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"Haro ld\", \"required to litigate\", \"San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"importance\", \"knowing\", \"which court system has the power to hear a particular case\")",
-        "summary": "The Alamo, a historical site in Texas, realized that they agreed to hear their dispute with He Realizes in a specific court in San Antonio, Texas. However, any court in the United States is likely to uphold the choice-of-form clause and require Haro ld (or their insurance company) to litigate in San Antonio, Texas. In the United States, there are two court systems: state and federal, both of which have the power to hear and decide a particular case. The Constitution compels an inquiry into whether any court extends its reach unfairly to out-of-state residents. Nonresidents are entitled to fairness and due process, which is a question of personal jurisdiction.",
-        "answer": "(\"Alamo\", \"realized\", \"agreed to hear the dispute in a specific court in San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"Haro ld\", \"required to litigate\", \"San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"importance\", \"knowing\", \"which court system has the power to hear a particular case\")",
-        "input_text": "Alamo c annot c ome to terms. He realizes, ho wever, that he has  agre ed to hear the dispute with Alamo in a spe cific c ourt in  San Antonio , Texas. In the absenc e of fraud or b ad faith, an y  court in the Unite d States is likely to up hold the choic e-of- form clause and re quire Haro ld (or his insuranc e comp any) to  litigate in San Antonio , Texas.  Key Takeaway  There are two court systems in t he Unit ed States. It  is imp ortant t o kno w whic h system\u2014 the state court  system or t he feder al court system\u2014has t he p ower  to he ar and dec ide a par ticular case. Onc e that is  established, t he C onstitution c omp els an inquir y to  mak e sur e that no c ourt extends it s reach unf airly to  out-of-state resident s. The ques tion o f personal  jurisdic tion is a ques tion o f fairness and due pr ocess  to nonr esident s. 108  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "amount a warde d to the winning p arty. In an appeal, the \nappellant aims to sho w that there w as some prejudicial error \ncommitte d by the trial judge. There will be errors, of c ourse, \nbut the errors must be signific ant (i. e., not harmless). The b asic \nidea is f or an appellate c ourt to ensure that a reasonab ly fair \ntrial w as pro vide d to both sides. Enf orcement of the c ourt\u2019s \njudgment\u2014an a ward of money , an injunction\u2014is usually \nstayed (postpone d) until the appellate c ourt has rule d. As \nnote d earlier, the p arty making the appeal is c alled the \nappellant, and the p arty def ending the judgment is the appelle e \n(or in some c ourts, the petitioner and the respondent). \nDuring the trial, the losing p arty ma y ha ve obje cted to \ncertain proc edural de cisions b y the judge. In c ompiling a \nrecord on appeal, the appellant ne eds to sho w the appellate \ncourt some e xamp les of mistakes made b y the judge\u2014f or \nexamp le, ha ving errone ously admitte d evidenc e, ha ving f ailed \nto admit proper evidenc e that should ha ve be en admitte d, or \nhaving wrongly instructe d the jury . The appellate c ourt must \ndetermine if those mistakes w ere serious enough to amount to \nprejudicial error. \nAppellate and trial proc edures are diff erent. The appellate \ncourt does not hear witnesses or ac cept evidenc e. It reviews the \nrecord of the c ase\u2014the transc ript of the witnesses \u2019 testimon y \nand the documents re ceived into evidenc e at trial\u2014to try to \nfind a legal error on a spe cific re quest of one or both of the \nparties. The p arties \u2019 lawyers prep are briefs (written statements \ncontaining the f acts in the c ase), the proc edural steps taken, COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  127",
-        "page_label": "134",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"record of the case\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"determines\", \"legal error\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"considers\", \"specific request of parties\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"enforces\", \"court's judgment\"), (\"Appellant\", \"makes\", \"appeal\"), (\"Appellee\", \"defends\", \"judgment\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"hears\", \"witnesses\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"accepts\", \"evidence\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"receives\", \"transcript of testimonies\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"documents received as evidence\")",
-        "summary": "The song \"Here Comes the Boom\" was originally released by American rock band Nelly in 2002. It was featured in the soundtrack of the film \"The Longest Yard.\" The legal process of an appeal involves the appellant, who is the party making the appeal, and the appellee, who is the party defending the judgment. The appellate court reviews the record of the case, which includes the transcript of witnesses' testimonies and documents received as evidence during the trial, to determine if there were any legal errors. The court may enforce the judgment, such as awarding money or issuing an injunction, after the appellate court has ruled.",
-        "answer": "(\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"record of the case\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"determines\", \"legal error\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"considers\", \"specific request of parties\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"enforces\", \"court's judgment\"), (\"Appellant\", \"makes\", \"appeal\"), (\"Appellee\", \"defends\", \"judgment\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"hears\", \"witnesses\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"accepts\", \"evidence\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"receives\", \"transcript of testimonies\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"documents received as evidence\")",
-        "input_text": "amount a warde d to the winning p arty. In an appeal, the  appellant aims to sho w that there w as some prejudicial error  committe d by the trial judge. There will be errors, of c ourse,  but the errors must be signific ant (i. e., not harmless). The b asic  idea is f or an appellate c ourt to ensure that a reasonab ly fair  trial w as pro vide d to both sides. Enf orcement of the c ourt\u2019s  judgment\u2014an a ward of money , an injunction\u2014is usually  stayed (postpone d) until the appellate c ourt has rule d. As  note d earlier, the p arty making the appeal is c alled the  appellant, and the p arty def ending the judgment is the appelle e  (or in some c ourts, the petitioner and the respondent).  During the trial, the losing p arty ma y ha ve obje cted to  certain proc edural de cisions b y the judge. In c ompiling a  record on appeal, the appellant ne eds to sho w the appellate  court some e xamp les of mistakes made b y the judge\u2014f or  examp le, ha ving errone ously admitte d evidenc e, ha ving f ailed  to admit proper evidenc e that should ha ve be en admitte d, or  having wrongly instructe d the jury . The appellate c ourt must  determine if those mistakes w ere serious enough to amount to  prejudicial error.  Appellate and trial proc edures are diff erent. The appellate  court does not hear witnesses or ac cept evidenc e. It reviews the  record of the c ase\u2014the transc ript of the witnesses \u2019 testimon y  and the documents re ceived into evidenc e at trial\u2014to try to  find a legal error on a spe cific re quest of one or both of the  parties. The p arties \u2019 lawyers prep are briefs (written statements  containing the f acts in the c ase), the proc edural steps taken, COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  127"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "or la w, there is no reason to ha ve a trial. F or e xamp le, the \nplaintiff sues on a promissory note and, at deposition (an oral \nexamination under o ath), the def endant admits ha ving made \nno p ayment on the note and off ers no e xcuse that w ould be \nrecognizab le as a reason not to p ay. There is no reason to ha ve \na trial, and the c ourt should grant summary judgment. \n3.3.2    Disc overy \nIf there is a f actual dispute, the c ase will usually in volve some \ndegre e of disc overy, where each p arty tries to get as much \ninformation out of the other p arty as the rules allo w. Until the \n1940s, when disc overy be came p art of civil proc edure rules, a \nlawsuit w as fre quently a game in which each p arty hid as much \ninformation as possib le and trie d to surprise the other p arty in \ncourt. \nBeginning with a change in the F ederal Rules of Civil \nProc edure adopte d b y the Supreme Court in 1938 and \nsubse quently f ollowed by man y of the states, the p arties are \nentitle d to learn the f acts of the c ase bef ore trial. The b asic idea \nis to help the p arties determine what the evidenc e might be, \nwho the potential witnesses are, and what spe cific issues are \nrelev ant. Disc overy c an proc eed by sev eral methods. A p arty \nreasonab le pe ople would disagre e. Summary judgment is a final \norder, and it is appealab le. 112  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "119",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"plaintiff\", \"sues on\", \"promissory note\"), (\"deposition\", \"involves\", \"admission of no payment on note\"), (\"defendant\", \"offers no excuse\", \"recognizable as reason not to pay\"), (\"court\", \"should grant\", \"summary judgment\"), (\"discovery\", \"occurs\", \"actual dispute\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"getting information from other party\"), (\"before 1940s\", \"lawsuit\", \"hide information and surprise other party\"), (\"1938\", \"Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\", \"adopted by Supreme Court\"), (\"1938\", \"change\", \"allow parties to learn facts before trial\"), (\"basic idea\", \"discovery\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"discovery\", \"can proceed\", \"several methods\"), (\"reasonable people\", \"would disagree\", \"\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\"), (\"discovery\", \"purpose\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\")",
-        "summary": "The legal process begins with a plaintiff suing on a promissory note, leading to a deposition where the defendant admits to not making any payments on the note. The defendant offers no excuse for not paying, which can be recognized as a reason not to pay. In such cases, the court should grant summary judgment. Discovery occurs when there is an actual dispute, and its purpose is to help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues. Discovery can proceed through several methods. If reasonable people would disagree, summary judgment cannot be granted. Summary judgment is a final order that is appealable.",
-        "answer": "(\"plaintiff\", \"sues on\", \"promissory note\"), (\"deposition\", \"involves\", \"admission of no payment on note\"), (\"defendant\", \"offers no excuse\", \"recognizable as reason not to pay\"), (\"court\", \"should grant\", \"summary judgment\"), (\"discovery\", \"occurs\", \"actual dispute\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"getting information from other party\"), (\"before 1940s\", \"lawsuit\", \"hide information and surprise other party\"), (\"1938\", \"Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\", \"adopted by Supreme Court\"), (\"1938\", \"change\", \"allow parties to learn facts before trial\"), (\"basic idea\", \"discovery\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"discovery\", \"can proceed\", \"several methods\"), (\"reasonable people\", \"would disagree\", \"\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\"), (\"discovery\", \"purpose\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\")",
-        "input_text": "or la w, there is no reason to ha ve a trial. F or e xamp le, the  plaintiff sues on a promissory note and, at deposition (an oral  examination under o ath), the def endant admits ha ving made  no p ayment on the note and off ers no e xcuse that w ould be  recognizab le as a reason not to p ay. There is no reason to ha ve  a trial, and the c ourt should grant summary judgment.  3.3.2    Disc overy  If there is a f actual dispute, the c ase will usually in volve some  degre e of disc overy, where each p arty tries to get as much  information out of the other p arty as the rules allo w. Until the  1940s, when disc overy be came p art of civil proc edure rules, a  lawsuit w as fre quently a game in which each p arty hid as much  information as possib le and trie d to surprise the other p arty in  court.  Beginning with a change in the F ederal Rules of Civil  Proc edure adopte d b y the Supreme Court in 1938 and  subse quently f ollowed by man y of the states, the p arties are  entitle d to learn the f acts of the c ase bef ore trial. The b asic idea  is to help the p arties determine what the evidenc e might be,  who the potential witnesses are, and what spe cific issues are  relev ant. Disc overy c an proc eed by sev eral methods. A p arty  reasonab le pe ople would disagre e. Summary judgment is a final  order, and it is appealab le. 112  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "judge who de cides that a dire cted verdict is appropriate will \nusually w ait to se e what the jury\u2019s v erdict is. If it is f avorab le \nto the p arty the judge thinks should win, she c an rely on that \nverdict. If the v erdict is f or the other p arty, he c an grant the \nmotion f or judgment n. o.v. This is a saf er w ay to proc eed \nbecause if the judge is rev ersed on appeal, a new trial is not \nnecessary . The jury\u2019s v erdict alw ays can be restore d, whereas \nwithout a jury v erdict (as happens when a dire cted verdict is \ngrante d bef ore the c ase goes to the jury), the entire c ase must be \npresente d to a new jury . Ferlito v . Johnson & Jo hnson (Se ction \n3.9 \u201cCases \u201d) illustrates the judgment n. o.v. proc ess in a c ase \nwhere the judge allo wed the c ase to go to a jury that w as overly \nsymp athetic to the p laintiffs. \nKey Takeaway \nThe purp ose o f a tr ial judge is t o ensur e jus tice to all \nparties to the law suit. The judge pr esides , instructs \nthe jur y, and may limit who t estifies and what t hey \nhave come to . Judgment n. o.v. rev erses the v erdict and a wards \njudgment to the p arty against whom the jury\u2019s v erdict w as made. 124  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "131",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Trial judge\", \"purpose\", \"ensure justice to all parties involved in the lawsuit\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"presides over\", \"trial\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"instructions\", \"jury\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"limits\", \"testimonies\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"may limit\", \"what they have come to present\"), (\"Judgment n.o.v.\", \"process\", \"reverses the verdict and awards judgment to the party against whom the jury's verdict was made\"), (\"Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson\", \"illustrates\", \"judgment n.o.v. process\")",
-        "summary": "The purpose of a trial judge is to ensure justice to all parties involved in the lawsuit. They preside over the trial, instruct the jury, and may limit who testifies and what they have come to present. The judgment n.o.v. process, as illustrated in the case \"Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson,\" reverses the verdict and awards judgment to the party against whom the jury's verdict was made. The song \"Here Comes the Boom\" was originally released by American rock band Nelly in 2002 and was featured in the soundtrack of the film \"The Longest Yard.\" The song \"Here Comes the Boom\" was also released by American rock band Nelly.",
-        "answer": "(\"Trial judge\", \"purpose\", \"ensure justice to all parties involved in the lawsuit\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"presides over\", \"trial\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"instructions\", \"jury\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"limits\", \"testimonies\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"may limit\", \"what they have come to present\"), (\"Judgment n.o.v.\", \"process\", \"reverses the verdict and awards judgment to the party against whom the jury's verdict was made\"), (\"Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson\", \"illustrates\", \"judgment n.o.v. process\")",
-        "input_text": "judge who de cides that a dire cted verdict is appropriate will  usually w ait to se e what the jury\u2019s v erdict is. If it is f avorab le  to the p arty the judge thinks should win, she c an rely on that  verdict. If the v erdict is f or the other p arty, he c an grant the  motion f or judgment n. o.v. This is a saf er w ay to proc eed  because if the judge is rev ersed on appeal, a new trial is not  necessary . The jury\u2019s v erdict alw ays can be restore d, whereas  without a jury v erdict (as happens when a dire cted verdict is  grante d bef ore the c ase goes to the jury), the entire c ase must be  presente d to a new jury . Ferlito v . Johnson & Jo hnson (Se ction  3.9 \u201cCases \u201d) illustrates the judgment n. o.v. proc ess in a c ase  where the judge allo wed the c ase to go to a jury that w as overly  symp athetic to the p laintiffs.  Key Takeaway  The purp ose o f a tr ial judge is t o ensur e jus tice to all  parties to the law suit. The judge pr esides , instructs  the jur y, and may limit who t estifies and what t hey  have come to . Judgment n. o.v. rev erses the v erdict and a wards  judgment to the p arty against whom the jury\u2019s v erdict w as made. 124  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "defendant will often den y all the allegations of the c omp laint \nor will admit to c ertain of its allegations and den y others. \nA comp laint and subse quent p leadings are usually quite \ngeneral and giv e little detail. Cases c an be de cide d on the \npleadings alone in the f ollowing situations: (1) If the def endant \nfails to answ er the c omp laint, the c ourt c an enter a def ault \njudgment, a warding the p laintiff what he se eks. (2) The \ndefendant c an mo ve to dismiss the c omp laint on the grounds \nthat the p laintiff f ailed to \u201cstate a claim on which relief c an \nbe grante d,\u201d or on the b asis that there is no subje ct matter \njurisdiction f or the c ourt chosen b y the p laintiff, or on the \nbasis that there is no personal jurisdiction o ver the def endant. \nThe def endant is sa ying, in eff ect, that ev en if all the p laintiff\u2019s \nallegations are true, they do not amount to a legal claim that \ncan be heard b y the c ourt. F or e xamp le, a claim that the \ndefendant induc ed a w oman to stop dating the p laintiff (a \nso-called alienation of aff ections c ause of action) is no longer \nactionab le in US state c ourts, and an y court will dismiss the \ncomp laint without an y further proc eedings. (This type of \ndismissal is oc casionally still c alled a demurrer.) \nA third kind of dismissal c an take p lace on a motion f or \nsummary judgment.17\n If there is no triab le question of f act \n17. As in a dire cted verdict, when a judge grants summary judgment, she \nhas c onclude d that there are no matters of la w or f act on which COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  111",
-        "page_label": "118",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"defendant\", \"often\", \"deny allegations of the complaint\"), (\"defendant\", \"admit to\", \"certain allegations\"), (\"complaint\", \"usually\", \"general and give little detail\"), (\"cases\", \"can be decided on the pleadings alone\", \"following situations\"), (\"defendant\", \"fails to answer the complaint\", \"court enters default judgment\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"grounds\"), (\"plaintiff\", \"fails to\", \"state a claim on which relief can be granted\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no personal jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"says\", \"all plaintiff's allegations do not amount to a legal claim\"), (\"alienation of affections cause of action\", \"no longer actionable\", \"US state courts\"), (\"court\", \"dismisses the complaint\", \"no further proceedings\"), (\"motion for summary judgment\", \"can take place\", \"no trial question of law or fact\"), (\"court\", \"grants summary judgment\", \"no matters of law or fact\")",
-        "summary": "In legal cases, defendants often deny allegations of the complaint, while admitting to certain allegations. Complaints are usually general and provide little detail. Cases can be decided on the pleadings alone in certain situations. If a defendant fails to answer the complaint, the court enters a default judgment. A defendant may move to dismiss the complaint based on grounds such as the plaintiff failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted, no subject matter jurisdiction, or no personal jurisdiction. A defendant may also argue that all of the plaintiff's allegations do not amount to a legal claim. The alienation of affections cause of action is no longer actionable in US state courts. If a court dismisses the complaint, there are no further proceedings. A motion for summary judgment can take place when there are no trial questions of law or fact. If the court grants summary judgment, there are no matters of law or fact remaining.",
-        "answer": "(\"defendant\", \"often\", \"deny allegations of the complaint\"), (\"defendant\", \"admit to\", \"certain allegations\"), (\"complaint\", \"usually\", \"general and give little detail\"), (\"cases\", \"can be decided on the pleadings alone\", \"following situations\"), (\"defendant\", \"fails to answer the complaint\", \"court enters default judgment\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"grounds\"), (\"plaintiff\", \"fails to\", \"state a claim on which relief can be granted\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no personal jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"says\", \"all plaintiff's allegations do not amount to a legal claim\"), (\"alienation of affections cause of action\", \"no longer actionable\", \"US state courts\"), (\"court\", \"dismisses the complaint\", \"no further proceedings\"), (\"motion for summary judgment\", \"can take place\", \"no trial question of law or fact\"), (\"court\", \"grants summary judgment\", \"no matters of law or fact\")",
-        "input_text": "defendant will often den y all the allegations of the c omp laint  or will admit to c ertain of its allegations and den y others.  A comp laint and subse quent p leadings are usually quite  general and giv e little detail. Cases c an be de cide d on the  pleadings alone in the f ollowing situations: (1) If the def endant  fails to answ er the c omp laint, the c ourt c an enter a def ault  judgment, a warding the p laintiff what he se eks. (2) The  defendant c an mo ve to dismiss the c omp laint on the grounds  that the p laintiff f ailed to \u201cstate a claim on which relief c an  be grante d,\u201d or on the b asis that there is no subje ct matter  jurisdiction f or the c ourt chosen b y the p laintiff, or on the  basis that there is no personal jurisdiction o ver the def endant.  The def endant is sa ying, in eff ect, that ev en if all the p laintiff\u2019s  allegations are true, they do not amount to a legal claim that  can be heard b y the c ourt. F or e xamp le, a claim that the  defendant induc ed a w oman to stop dating the p laintiff (a  so-called alienation of aff ections c ause of action) is no longer  actionab le in US state c ourts, and an y court will dismiss the  comp laint without an y further proc eedings. (This type of  dismissal is oc casionally still c alled a demurrer.)  A third kind of dismissal c an take p lace on a motion f or  summary judgment.17  If there is no triab le question of f act  17. As in a dire cted verdict, when a judge grants summary judgment, she  has c onclude d that there are no matters of la w or f act on which COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  111"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "may serv e an interrogatory on his adv ersary\u2014a written re quest \nfor answ ers to spe cific questions. Or a p arty ma y depose the \nother p arty or a witness. A deposition is a liv e question-and-\nansw er session at which the witness answ ers questions put to \nhim b y one of the p arties \u2019 lawyers. His answ ers are re corde d \nverbatim and ma y be use d at trial. E ach p arty is also entitle d \nto inspe ct boo ks, documents, re cords, and other p hysical items \nin the possession of the other. This is a bro ad right, as it is \nnot limite d to just evidenc e that is admissib le at trial. Disc overy \nof p hysical evidenc e means that a p laintiff ma y inspe ct a \ncomp any\u2019s ac counts, customer lists, assets, profit-and-loss \nstatements, b alanc e she ets, engine ering and quality-c ontro l \nreports, sales reports, and virtually an y other document. \nThe la wyers, not the \ncourt, run the disc overy \nproc ess. F or e xamp le, one \nparty simp ly makes a written \ndemand, stating the time at \nwhich the deposition will \ntake p lace or the type of \ndocuments it wishes to \ninspe ct and make c opies of. \nA p arty unreasonab ly \nresisting disc overy methods \n(whether depositions, \nwritten interrogatories, or \nrequests f or documents) c an be challenge d, ho wever, and COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  113",
-        "page_label": "120",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"global health crisis\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"significant economic disruption\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"believed to have originated in\", \"seafood market in Wuhan, China\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"spread rapidly\", \"around the world\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"widespread lockdowns\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"social distancing measures\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"serving interrogatories\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"deposing the other party or a witness\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"inspecting books, documents, records, and other physical items\"), (\"Legal process\", \"broad right\", \"not limited to just admissible evidence at trial\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"inspecting a company's accounts\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"customer lists\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"assets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"profit-and-loss statements\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"balance sheets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"engineering and quality-control reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"sales reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"virtually any other document\"), (\"Legal process\", \"run by\", \"lawyers\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"written demands for depositions\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"requests for documents\")",
-        "summary": "The COVID-19 pandemic, which is believed to have originated in a seafood market in Wuhan, China, caused a global health crisis and significant economic disruption in 2020. The virus spread rapidly around the world, leading to widespread lockdowns and social distancing measures. In the legal process, parties may serve interrogatories, depose the other party or a witness, and inspect books, documents, records, and other physical items in the possession of the other party. This is a broad right, as it is not limited to just admissible evidence at trial. Discovery of physical evidence may include inspecting a company's accounts, customer lists, assets, profit-and-loss statements, balance sheets, engineering and quality-control reports, sales reports, and virtually any other document. The lawyers, not the court, run the discovery process, which may involve written demands for depositions or requests for documents.",
-        "answer": "(\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"global health crisis\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"significant economic disruption\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"believed to have originated in\", \"seafood market in Wuhan, China\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"spread rapidly\", \"around the world\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"widespread lockdowns\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"social distancing measures\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"serving interrogatories\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"deposing the other party or a witness\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"inspecting books, documents, records, and other physical items\"), (\"Legal process\", \"broad right\", \"not limited to just admissible evidence at trial\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"inspecting a company's accounts\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"customer lists\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"assets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"profit-and-loss statements\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"balance sheets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"engineering and quality-control reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"sales reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"virtually any other document\"), (\"Legal process\", \"run by\", \"lawyers\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"written demands for depositions\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"requests for documents\")",
-        "input_text": "may serv e an interrogatory on his adv ersary\u2014a written re quest  for answ ers to spe cific questions. Or a p arty ma y depose the  other p arty or a witness. A deposition is a liv e question-and- answ er session at which the witness answ ers questions put to  him b y one of the p arties \u2019 lawyers. His answ ers are re corde d  verbatim and ma y be use d at trial. E ach p arty is also entitle d  to inspe ct boo ks, documents, re cords, and other p hysical items  in the possession of the other. This is a bro ad right, as it is  not limite d to just evidenc e that is admissib le at trial. Disc overy  of p hysical evidenc e means that a p laintiff ma y inspe ct a  comp any\u2019s ac counts, customer lists, assets, profit-and-loss  statements, b alanc e she ets, engine ering and quality-c ontro l  reports, sales reports, and virtually an y other document.  The la wyers, not the  court, run the disc overy  proc ess. F or e xamp le, one  party simp ly makes a written  demand, stating the time at  which the deposition will  take p lace or the type of  documents it wishes to  inspe ct and make c opies of.  A p arty unreasonab ly  resisting disc overy methods  (whether depositions,  written interrogatories, or  requests f or documents) c an be challenge d, ho wever, and COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  113"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "judges are often brought into the proc ess to push reluctant \nparties to make more disclosure or to prote ct a p arty from \nirrelev ant or unreasonab le disc overy re quests. F or examp le, the \nparty re ceiving the disc overy re quest c an app ly to the c ourt \nfor a prote ctive order if it c an sho w that the demand is f or \nprivilege d material (e.g., a p arty\u2019s la wyers\u2019 records are not open \nfor inspe ction) or that the demand w as made to harass the \nopponent. In c omp lex cases betw een c omp anies, the disc overy \nof documents c an run into tens of millions of p ages and c an \ntake y ears. Depositions c an c onsume da ys or ev en w eeks of an \nexecutiv e\u2019s time. \nKey Takeaway \nMany cases ne ver ge t to trial. T hey are disp osed o f \nby mo tions t o dismiss or ar e settled \nafter extensiv e disc overy mak es clear to the par ties \nthe strengths and w eaknesses o f the \nparties to the dispu te. 114  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "121",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"judges\", \"are often brought into\", \"process\"), (\"process\", \"purpose\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"reluctant parties\", \"to make more disclosure\", \"process\"), (\"party\", \"can apply to court\", \"protective order\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand is for privileged material\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand was made to harass opponent\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"tens of millions of pages\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"takes years\"), (\"depositions\", \"consume\", \"days or weeks of executive's time\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"disposed of by motions to dismiss\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"settled after extensive discovery\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"protect party from irrelevant or unreasonable discovery requests\"), (\"protective order\", \"applied for by party\", \"show demand is for privileged material or harassment\"), (\"extensive discovery\", \"makes clear\", \"strengths and weaknesses of parties\")",
-        "summary": "The process of discovery in legal cases often involves judges being brought into the process to push reluctant parties into making more disclosure or to protect a party from irrelevant or unreasonable discovery requests. In complex cases, the discovery of documents can involve tens of millions of pages and take years to complete. Depositions can consume days or weeks of an executive's time. Many cases never make it to trial, instead being disposed of by motions to dismiss or settled after extensive discovery. Extensive discovery can make the strengths and weaknesses of the parties involved clear, and a protective order can be applied for by a party if they can show that the demand is for privileged material or was made to harass the opponent.",
-        "answer": "(\"judges\", \"are often brought into\", \"process\"), (\"process\", \"purpose\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"reluctant parties\", \"to make more disclosure\", \"process\"), (\"party\", \"can apply to court\", \"protective order\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand is for privileged material\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand was made to harass opponent\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"tens of millions of pages\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"takes years\"), (\"depositions\", \"consume\", \"days or weeks of executive's time\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"disposed of by motions to dismiss\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"settled after extensive discovery\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"protect party from irrelevant or unreasonable discovery requests\"), (\"protective order\", \"applied for by party\", \"show demand is for privileged material or harassment\"), (\"extensive discovery\", \"makes clear\", \"strengths and weaknesses of parties\")",
-        "input_text": "judges are often brought into the proc ess to push reluctant  parties to make more disclosure or to prote ct a p arty from  irrelev ant or unreasonab le disc overy re quests. F or examp le, the  party re ceiving the disc overy re quest c an app ly to the c ourt  for a prote ctive order if it c an sho w that the demand is f or  privilege d material (e.g., a p arty\u2019s la wyers\u2019 records are not open  for inspe ction) or that the demand w as made to harass the  opponent. In c omp lex cases betw een c omp anies, the disc overy  of documents c an run into tens of millions of p ages and c an  take y ears. Depositions c an c onsume da ys or ev en w eeks of an  executiv e\u2019s time.  Key Takeaway  Many cases ne ver ge t to trial. T hey are disp osed o f  by mo tions t o dismiss or ar e settled  after extensiv e disc overy mak es clear to the par ties  the strengths and w eaknesses o f the  parties to the dispu te. 114  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      }
-    ],
-    "signature_instructions": "\n    Given a set of Knowledge Graph (KG) triples, your task is to organize and present the information from these triples in a detailed, factual, and evidence-based document. The document should closely adhere to the provided triples, logically arranging the information to ensure clarity and factual integrity.\n\n    Avoid creating a narrative or adding interpretive elements. Instead, focus on structuring the KG's factual content into a coherent, detailed document that directly reflects the relationships and entities within the KG.\n\n    ### Guidelines:\n    - Present the KG triples in a logically structured manner, maintaining the factual content.\n    - Do not infer or add information not explicitly contained within the KG triples.\n    - Arrange the triples to enhance understanding, grouping related facts where applicable.\n    - Use clear and concise language to ensure the factual basis of the KG is communicated effectively.\n    ",
-    "signature_prefix": "Summary:",
-    "extended_signature_instructions": "\n    Given a set of Knowledge Graph (KG) triples, your task is to organize and present the information from these triples in a detailed, factual, and evidence-based document. The document should closely adhere to the provided triples, logically arranging the information to ensure clarity and factual integrity.\n\n    Avoid creating a narrative or adding interpretive elements. Instead, focus on structuring the KG's factual content into a coherent, detailed document that directly reflects the relationships and entities within the KG.\n\n    ### Guidelines:\n    - Present the KG triples in a logically structured manner, maintaining the factual content.\n    - Do not infer or add information not explicitly contained within the KG triples.\n    - Arrange the triples to enhance understanding, grouping related facts where applicable.\n    - Use clear and concise language to ensure the factual basis of the KG is communicated effectively.\n    ",
-    "extended_signature_prefix": "Summary:"
-  },
-  "critic": {
-    "lm": null,
-    "traces": [],
-    "train": [],
-    "demos": [
-      {
-        "text": "the f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction o ver the c ase. \nBut f ederal c ourts will also ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction \nover certain c ases that ha ve only a state-b ased cause of action; \nthose c ases are ones in which the p laintiff(s) and the \ndefendant(s) are from diff erent states and the amount in \ncontro versy is more than $75,000. State c ourts c an ha ve subje ct \nmatter jurisdiction o ver certain c ases that ha ve only a f ederal-\nbased cause of action. The Supreme Court has no w made clear \nthat state c ourts ha ve concurrent jurisdiction13\n of an y federal \ncause of action unless Congress has giv en exclusiv e jurisdiction \nto federal c ourts. \nIn short, a c ase with a f ederal question c an be often be heard \nin either state or f ederal c ourt, and a c ase that has p arties with a \ndiversity of citizenship c an be heard in state c ourts or in f ederal \ncourts where the tests of c omp lete div ersity and amount in \ncontro versy are met. \nWhether a c ase will be heard in a state c ourt or mo ved to \na federal c ourt will depend on the p arties. If a p laintiff files a \ncase in state trial c ourt where c oncurrent jurisdiction app lies, \na def endant ma y (or ma y not) ask that the c ase be remo ved to \nfederal district c ourt. \n13. When both state and f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction \nof a c ase, there is c oncurrent jurisdiction. Only one c ourt will hear \nthe c ase betw een the p arties and will hear all c auses of action, \nwhether b ased on state or f ederal la w. 98  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "105",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"the case\"), (\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a state-based cause of action\"), (\"State courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Supreme Court\", \"has made clear\", \"state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over any federal cause of action unless Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"either state or federal court\"), (\"Diversity cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts or federal courts where the tests of complete diversity and amount in controversy are met\"), (\"Case\", \"will\", \"be determined by the parties\"), (\"Plaintiff\", \"can file a case in\", \"state trial court where concurrent jurisdiction applies\"), (\"Defendant\", \"may or may not ask\", \"for the case to be removed to federal district court\"), (\"State and federal courts\", \"have concurrent jurisdiction over a case\", \"when both have subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"Congress\", \"can give\", \"exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"State courts\", \"can hear\", \"cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts under certain conditions\")",
-        "summary": "The Federal Courts have subject matter jurisdiction over the case, but they also have subject matter jurisdiction over certain cases that have only a state-based cause of action, such as those with differing state citizenship among the parties and an amount in controversy over $75,000. State courts also have subject matter jurisdiction over certain cases with only a federal-based cause of action. The Supreme Court has made it clear that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over any federal cause of action unless Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts. Federal question cases can often be heard in either state or federal court, and diversity cases can be heard in state courts or federal courts where the tests of complete diversity and amount in controversy are met. The determination of whether a case will be heard in a state court or moved to a federal court depends on the parties involved and the criteria for concurrent jurisdiction. If a plaintiff files a case in a state trial court where concurrent jurisdiction applies, a defendant may (or may not) ask that the case be removed to a federal district court. When both state and federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a case, there is concurrent jurisdiction. Only one court will hear the case between the parties and will hear all causes of action, whether based on state or federal law.",
-        "answer": "(\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"the case\"), (\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a state-based cause of action\"), (\"State courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Supreme Court\", \"has made clear\", \"state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over any federal cause of action unless Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"either state or federal court\"), (\"Diversity cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts or federal courts where the tests of complete diversity and amount in controversy are met\"), (\"Case\", \"will\", \"be determined by the parties\"), (\"Plaintiff\", \"can file a case in\", \"state trial court where concurrent jurisdiction applies\"), (\"Defendant\", \"may or may not ask\", \"for the case to be removed to federal district court\"), (\"State and federal courts\", \"have concurrent jurisdiction over a case\", \"when both have subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"Congress\", \"can give\", \"exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"State courts\", \"can hear\", \"cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts under certain conditions\")",
-        "input_text": "the f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction o ver the c ase.  But f ederal c ourts will also ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction  over certain c ases that ha ve only a state-b ased cause of action;  those c ases are ones in which the p laintiff(s) and the  defendant(s) are from diff erent states and the amount in  contro versy is more than $75,000. State c ourts c an ha ve subje ct  matter jurisdiction o ver certain c ases that ha ve only a f ederal- based cause of action. The Supreme Court has no w made clear  that state c ourts ha ve concurrent jurisdiction13  of an y federal  cause of action unless Congress has giv en exclusiv e jurisdiction  to federal c ourts.  In short, a c ase with a f ederal question c an be often be heard  in either state or f ederal c ourt, and a c ase that has p arties with a  diversity of citizenship c an be heard in state c ourts or in f ederal  courts where the tests of c omp lete div ersity and amount in  contro versy are met.  Whether a c ase will be heard in a state c ourt or mo ved to  a federal c ourt will depend on the p arties. If a p laintiff files a  case in state trial c ourt where c oncurrent jurisdiction app lies,  a def endant ma y (or ma y not) ask that the c ase be remo ved to  federal district c ourt.  13. When both state and f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction  of a c ase, there is c oncurrent jurisdiction. Only one c ourt will hear  the c ase betw een the p arties and will hear all c auses of action,  whether b ased on state or f ederal la w. 98  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "judges are often brought into the proc ess to push reluctant \nparties to make more disclosure or to prote ct a p arty from \nirrelev ant or unreasonab le disc overy re quests. F or examp le, the \nparty re ceiving the disc overy re quest c an app ly to the c ourt \nfor a prote ctive order if it c an sho w that the demand is f or \nprivilege d material (e.g., a p arty\u2019s la wyers\u2019 records are not open \nfor inspe ction) or that the demand w as made to harass the \nopponent. In c omp lex cases betw een c omp anies, the disc overy \nof documents c an run into tens of millions of p ages and c an \ntake y ears. Depositions c an c onsume da ys or ev en w eeks of an \nexecutiv e\u2019s time. \nKey Takeaway \nMany cases ne ver ge t to trial. T hey are disp osed o f \nby mo tions t o dismiss or ar e settled \nafter extensiv e disc overy mak es clear to the par ties \nthe strengths and w eaknesses o f the \nparties to the dispu te. 114  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "121",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"judges\", \"are often brought into\", \"process\"), (\"process\", \"purpose\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"reluctant parties\", \"to make more disclosure\", \"process\"), (\"party\", \"can apply to court\", \"protective order\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand is for privileged material\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand was made to harass opponent\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"tens of millions of pages\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"takes years\"), (\"depositions\", \"consume\", \"days or weeks of executive's time\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"disposed of by motions to dismiss\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"settled after extensive discovery\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"protect party from irrelevant or unreasonable discovery requests\"), (\"protective order\", \"applied for by party\", \"show demand is for privileged material or harassment\"), (\"extensive discovery\", \"makes clear\", \"strengths and weaknesses of parties\")",
-        "summary": "The process of discovery in legal cases often involves judges being brought into the process to push reluctant parties into making more disclosure or to protect a party from irrelevant or unreasonable discovery requests. In complex cases, the discovery of documents can involve tens of millions of pages and take years to complete. Depositions can consume days or weeks of an executive's time. Many cases never make it to trial, instead being disposed of by motions to dismiss or settled after extensive discovery. Extensive discovery can make the strengths and weaknesses of the parties involved clear, and a protective order can be applied for by a party if they can show that the demand is for privileged material or was made to harass the opponent.",
-        "answer": "(\"judges\", \"are often brought into\", \"process\"), (\"process\", \"purpose\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"reluctant parties\", \"to make more disclosure\", \"process\"), (\"party\", \"can apply to court\", \"protective order\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand is for privileged material\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand was made to harass opponent\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"tens of millions of pages\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"takes years\"), (\"depositions\", \"consume\", \"days or weeks of executive's time\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"disposed of by motions to dismiss\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"settled after extensive discovery\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"protect party from irrelevant or unreasonable discovery requests\"), (\"protective order\", \"applied for by party\", \"show demand is for privileged material or harassment\"), (\"extensive discovery\", \"makes clear\", \"strengths and weaknesses of parties\")",
-        "input_text": "judges are often brought into the proc ess to push reluctant  parties to make more disclosure or to prote ct a p arty from  irrelev ant or unreasonab le disc overy re quests. F or examp le, the  party re ceiving the disc overy re quest c an app ly to the c ourt  for a prote ctive order if it c an sho w that the demand is f or  privilege d material (e.g., a p arty\u2019s la wyers\u2019 records are not open  for inspe ction) or that the demand w as made to harass the  opponent. In c omp lex cases betw een c omp anies, the disc overy  of documents c an run into tens of millions of p ages and c an  take y ears. Depositions c an c onsume da ys or ev en w eeks of an  executiv e\u2019s time.  Key Takeaway  Many cases ne ver ge t to trial. T hey are disp osed o f  by mo tions t o dismiss or ar e settled  after extensiv e disc overy mak es clear to the par ties  the strengths and w eaknesses o f the  parties to the dispu te. 114  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "or la w, there is no reason to ha ve a trial. F or e xamp le, the \nplaintiff sues on a promissory note and, at deposition (an oral \nexamination under o ath), the def endant admits ha ving made \nno p ayment on the note and off ers no e xcuse that w ould be \nrecognizab le as a reason not to p ay. There is no reason to ha ve \na trial, and the c ourt should grant summary judgment. \n3.3.2    Disc overy \nIf there is a f actual dispute, the c ase will usually in volve some \ndegre e of disc overy, where each p arty tries to get as much \ninformation out of the other p arty as the rules allo w. Until the \n1940s, when disc overy be came p art of civil proc edure rules, a \nlawsuit w as fre quently a game in which each p arty hid as much \ninformation as possib le and trie d to surprise the other p arty in \ncourt. \nBeginning with a change in the F ederal Rules of Civil \nProc edure adopte d b y the Supreme Court in 1938 and \nsubse quently f ollowed by man y of the states, the p arties are \nentitle d to learn the f acts of the c ase bef ore trial. The b asic idea \nis to help the p arties determine what the evidenc e might be, \nwho the potential witnesses are, and what spe cific issues are \nrelev ant. Disc overy c an proc eed by sev eral methods. A p arty \nreasonab le pe ople would disagre e. Summary judgment is a final \norder, and it is appealab le. 112  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "119",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"plaintiff\", \"sues on\", \"promissory note\"), (\"deposition\", \"involves\", \"admission of no payment on note\"), (\"defendant\", \"offers no excuse\", \"recognizable as reason not to pay\"), (\"court\", \"should grant\", \"summary judgment\"), (\"discovery\", \"occurs\", \"actual dispute\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"getting information from other party\"), (\"before 1940s\", \"lawsuit\", \"hide information and surprise other party\"), (\"1938\", \"Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\", \"adopted by Supreme Court\"), (\"1938\", \"change\", \"allow parties to learn facts before trial\"), (\"basic idea\", \"discovery\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"discovery\", \"can proceed\", \"several methods\"), (\"reasonable people\", \"would disagree\", \"\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\"), (\"discovery\", \"purpose\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\")",
-        "summary": "The legal process begins with a plaintiff suing on a promissory note, leading to a deposition where the defendant admits to not making any payments on the note. The defendant offers no excuse for not paying, which can be recognized as a reason not to pay. In such cases, the court should grant summary judgment. Discovery occurs when there is an actual dispute, and its purpose is to help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues. Discovery can proceed through several methods. If reasonable people would disagree, summary judgment cannot be granted. Summary judgment is a final order that is appealable.",
-        "answer": "(\"plaintiff\", \"sues on\", \"promissory note\"), (\"deposition\", \"involves\", \"admission of no payment on note\"), (\"defendant\", \"offers no excuse\", \"recognizable as reason not to pay\"), (\"court\", \"should grant\", \"summary judgment\"), (\"discovery\", \"occurs\", \"actual dispute\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"getting information from other party\"), (\"before 1940s\", \"lawsuit\", \"hide information and surprise other party\"), (\"1938\", \"Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\", \"adopted by Supreme Court\"), (\"1938\", \"change\", \"allow parties to learn facts before trial\"), (\"basic idea\", \"discovery\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"discovery\", \"can proceed\", \"several methods\"), (\"reasonable people\", \"would disagree\", \"\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\"), (\"discovery\", \"purpose\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\")",
-        "input_text": "or la w, there is no reason to ha ve a trial. F or e xamp le, the  plaintiff sues on a promissory note and, at deposition (an oral  examination under o ath), the def endant admits ha ving made  no p ayment on the note and off ers no e xcuse that w ould be  recognizab le as a reason not to p ay. There is no reason to ha ve  a trial, and the c ourt should grant summary judgment.  3.3.2    Disc overy  If there is a f actual dispute, the c ase will usually in volve some  degre e of disc overy, where each p arty tries to get as much  information out of the other p arty as the rules allo w. Until the  1940s, when disc overy be came p art of civil proc edure rules, a  lawsuit w as fre quently a game in which each p arty hid as much  information as possib le and trie d to surprise the other p arty in  court.  Beginning with a change in the F ederal Rules of Civil  Proc edure adopte d b y the Supreme Court in 1938 and  subse quently f ollowed by man y of the states, the p arties are  entitle d to learn the f acts of the c ase bef ore trial. The b asic idea  is to help the p arties determine what the evidenc e might be,  who the potential witnesses are, and what spe cific issues are  relev ant. Disc overy c an proc eed by sev eral methods. A p arty  reasonab le pe ople would disagre e. Summary judgment is a final  order, and it is appealab le. 112  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "Alamo c annot c ome to terms. He realizes, ho wever, that he has \nagre ed to hear the dispute with Alamo in a spe cific c ourt in \nSan Antonio , Texas. In the absenc e of fraud or b ad faith, an y \ncourt in the Unite d States is likely to up hold the choic e-of-\nform clause and re quire Haro ld (or his insuranc e comp any) to \nlitigate in San Antonio , Texas. \nKey Takeaway \nThere are two court systems in t he Unit ed States. It \nis imp ortant t o kno w whic h system\u2014 the state court \nsystem or t he feder al court system\u2014has t he p ower \nto he ar and dec ide a par ticular case. Onc e that is \nestablished, t he C onstitution c omp els an inquir y to \nmak e sur e that no c ourt extends it s reach unf airly to \nout-of-state resident s. The ques tion o f personal \njurisdic tion is a ques tion o f fairness and due pr ocess \nto nonr esident s. 108  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "115",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Alamo\", \"realized\", \"agreed to hear the dispute in a specific court in San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"Haro ld\", \"required to litigate\", \"San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"importance\", \"knowing\", \"which court system has the power to hear a particular case\")",
-        "summary": "The Alamo, a historical site in Texas, realized that they agreed to hear their dispute with He Realizes in a specific court in San Antonio, Texas. However, any court in the United States is likely to uphold the choice-of-form clause and require Haro ld (or their insurance company) to litigate in San Antonio, Texas. In the United States, there are two court systems: state and federal, both of which have the power to hear and decide a particular case. The Constitution compels an inquiry into whether any court extends its reach unfairly to out-of-state residents. Nonresidents are entitled to fairness and due process, which is a question of personal jurisdiction.",
-        "answer": "(\"Alamo\", \"realized\", \"agreed to hear the dispute in a specific court in San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"Haro ld\", \"required to litigate\", \"San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"importance\", \"knowing\", \"which court system has the power to hear a particular case\")",
-        "input_text": "Alamo c annot c ome to terms. He realizes, ho wever, that he has  agre ed to hear the dispute with Alamo in a spe cific c ourt in  San Antonio , Texas. In the absenc e of fraud or b ad faith, an y  court in the Unite d States is likely to up hold the choic e-of- form clause and re quire Haro ld (or his insuranc e comp any) to  litigate in San Antonio , Texas.  Key Takeaway  There are two court systems in t he Unit ed States. It  is imp ortant t o kno w whic h system\u2014 the state court  system or t he feder al court system\u2014has t he p ower  to he ar and dec ide a par ticular case. Onc e that is  established, t he C onstitution c omp els an inquir y to  mak e sur e that no c ourt extends it s reach unf airly to  out-of-state resident s. The ques tion o f personal  jurisdic tion is a ques tion o f fairness and due pr ocess  to nonr esident s. 108  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "amount a warde d to the winning p arty. In an appeal, the \nappellant aims to sho w that there w as some prejudicial error \ncommitte d by the trial judge. There will be errors, of c ourse, \nbut the errors must be signific ant (i. e., not harmless). The b asic \nidea is f or an appellate c ourt to ensure that a reasonab ly fair \ntrial w as pro vide d to both sides. Enf orcement of the c ourt\u2019s \njudgment\u2014an a ward of money , an injunction\u2014is usually \nstayed (postpone d) until the appellate c ourt has rule d. As \nnote d earlier, the p arty making the appeal is c alled the \nappellant, and the p arty def ending the judgment is the appelle e \n(or in some c ourts, the petitioner and the respondent). \nDuring the trial, the losing p arty ma y ha ve obje cted to \ncertain proc edural de cisions b y the judge. In c ompiling a \nrecord on appeal, the appellant ne eds to sho w the appellate \ncourt some e xamp les of mistakes made b y the judge\u2014f or \nexamp le, ha ving errone ously admitte d evidenc e, ha ving f ailed \nto admit proper evidenc e that should ha ve be en admitte d, or \nhaving wrongly instructe d the jury . The appellate c ourt must \ndetermine if those mistakes w ere serious enough to amount to \nprejudicial error. \nAppellate and trial proc edures are diff erent. The appellate \ncourt does not hear witnesses or ac cept evidenc e. It reviews the \nrecord of the c ase\u2014the transc ript of the witnesses \u2019 testimon y \nand the documents re ceived into evidenc e at trial\u2014to try to \nfind a legal error on a spe cific re quest of one or both of the \nparties. The p arties \u2019 lawyers prep are briefs (written statements \ncontaining the f acts in the c ase), the proc edural steps taken, COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  127",
-        "page_label": "134",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"record of the case\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"determines\", \"legal error\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"considers\", \"specific request of parties\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"enforces\", \"court's judgment\"), (\"Appellant\", \"makes\", \"appeal\"), (\"Appellee\", \"defends\", \"judgment\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"hears\", \"witnesses\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"accepts\", \"evidence\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"receives\", \"transcript of testimonies\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"documents received as evidence\")",
-        "summary": "The song \"Here Comes the Boom\" was originally released by American rock band Nelly in 2002. It was featured in the soundtrack of the film \"The Longest Yard.\" The legal process of an appeal involves the appellant, who is the party making the appeal, and the appellee, who is the party defending the judgment. The appellate court reviews the record of the case, which includes the transcript of witnesses' testimonies and documents received as evidence during the trial, to determine if there were any legal errors. The court may enforce the judgment, such as awarding money or issuing an injunction, after the appellate court has ruled.",
-        "answer": "(\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"record of the case\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"determines\", \"legal error\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"considers\", \"specific request of parties\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"enforces\", \"court's judgment\"), (\"Appellant\", \"makes\", \"appeal\"), (\"Appellee\", \"defends\", \"judgment\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"hears\", \"witnesses\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"accepts\", \"evidence\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"receives\", \"transcript of testimonies\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"documents received as evidence\")",
-        "input_text": "amount a warde d to the winning p arty. In an appeal, the  appellant aims to sho w that there w as some prejudicial error  committe d by the trial judge. There will be errors, of c ourse,  but the errors must be signific ant (i. e., not harmless). The b asic  idea is f or an appellate c ourt to ensure that a reasonab ly fair  trial w as pro vide d to both sides. Enf orcement of the c ourt\u2019s  judgment\u2014an a ward of money , an injunction\u2014is usually  stayed (postpone d) until the appellate c ourt has rule d. As  note d earlier, the p arty making the appeal is c alled the  appellant, and the p arty def ending the judgment is the appelle e  (or in some c ourts, the petitioner and the respondent).  During the trial, the losing p arty ma y ha ve obje cted to  certain proc edural de cisions b y the judge. In c ompiling a  record on appeal, the appellant ne eds to sho w the appellate  court some e xamp les of mistakes made b y the judge\u2014f or  examp le, ha ving errone ously admitte d evidenc e, ha ving f ailed  to admit proper evidenc e that should ha ve be en admitte d, or  having wrongly instructe d the jury . The appellate c ourt must  determine if those mistakes w ere serious enough to amount to  prejudicial error.  Appellate and trial proc edures are diff erent. The appellate  court does not hear witnesses or ac cept evidenc e. It reviews the  record of the c ase\u2014the transc ript of the witnesses \u2019 testimon y  and the documents re ceived into evidenc e at trial\u2014to try to  find a legal error on a spe cific re quest of one or both of the  parties. The p arties \u2019 lawyers prep are briefs (written statements  containing the f acts in the c ase), the proc edural steps taken, COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  127"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "3.4    The Pr etrial and T rial Phase \nLearning Objec tives \nAfter reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do \nthe following: \n1. Under stand ho w judges can push par ties int o \npretrial se ttlement . \n2. Explain t he me aning and use o f directed \nverdicts. \n3. Distinguish a dir ected verdict from a judgment \nn.o.v. (\u201cnotwithstanding t he v erdict\u201d). \nAfter c onsiderab le disc overy, one of the p arties ma y believ e \nthat there is no triab le issue of la w or f act f or the c ourt to \nconsider and ma y file a motion with the c ourt f or summary \njudgment. Unless it is v ery clear, the judge will den y a summary \njudgment motion, be cause that ends the c ase at the trial lev el; \nit is a \u201cfinal order\u201d in the c ase that tells the p laintiff \u201cno\u201d and \nleaves no room to bring another la wsuit against the def endant \nfor that p articular set of f acts (res judic ata). If the p laintiff COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  115",
-        "page_label": "122",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Judges\", \"can push parties\", \"into pretrial settlement\"), (\"Directed verdicts\", \"explain meaning and use of\", \"Directed verdict\"), (\"Directed verdict\", \"distinguish from\", \"judgment n.o.v.\"), (\"Res judicata\", \"refers to\", \"no room to bring another lawsuit\")",
-        "summary": "In the legal system, judges have the power to push parties into pretrial settlements. Directed verdicts are a tool used by judges to explain the meaning and use of directed verdicts, which are distinguished from judgments n.o.v. Summary judgment motions are a crucial aspect of the legal process, as judges will typically deny them unless the case is very clear. Summary judgment motions can end a case at the trial level, resulting in a final order. A final order tells the plaintiff that there is no room to bring another lawsuit against the defendant due to the concept of res judicata, meaning there is no room to bring another lawsuit.",
-        "answer": "(\"Judges\", \"can push parties\", \"into pretrial settlement\"), (\"Directed verdicts\", \"explain meaning and use of\", \"Directed verdict\"), (\"Directed verdict\", \"distinguish from\", \"judgment n.o.v.\"), (\"Res judicata\", \"refers to\", \"no room to bring another lawsuit\")",
-        "input_text": "3.4    The Pr etrial and T rial Phase  Learning Objec tives  After reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do  the following:  1. Under stand ho w judges can push par ties int o  pretrial se ttlement .  2. Explain t he me aning and use o f directed  verdicts.  3. Distinguish a dir ected verdict from a judgment  n.o.v. (\u201cnotwithstanding t he v erdict\u201d).  After c onsiderab le disc overy, one of the p arties ma y believ e  that there is no triab le issue of la w or f act f or the c ourt to  consider and ma y file a motion with the c ourt f or summary  judgment. Unless it is v ery clear, the judge will den y a summary  judgment motion, be cause that ends the c ase at the trial lev el;  it is a \u201cfinal order\u201d in the c ase that tells the p laintiff \u201cno\u201d and  leaves no room to bring another la wsuit against the def endant  for that p articular set of f acts (res judic ata). If the p laintiff COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  115"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "3.3    Motions and Disc overy \nLearning Objec tives \nAfter reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do \nthe following: \n1. Explain ho w a law suit can b e dismissed pr ior \nto any tr ial. \n2. Under stand t he basic pr inciples and pr actices \nof disc overy before a tr ial. \nThe early p hases of a civil action are characterize d by man y \ndifferent kinds of motions and a c omp lex proc ess of mutual \nfact-finding betw een the p arties that is kno wn as disc overy. A \nlawsuit will start with the p leadings15\n (comp laint and answ er in \nevery c ase, and in some c ases a c ounterclaim b y the def endant \nagainst the p laintiff and the p laintiff\u2019s rep ly to the def endant\u2019s \ncounterclaim). After the p leadings, the p arties ma y make \n15. The initial documents file d by parties in a la wsuit. COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  109",
-        "page_label": "116",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"many different kinds of motions\"), (\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"mutual fact-finding between the parties\", \"is known as\", \"discovery\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"a complex process of mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"lawsuit\", \"starts with\", \"pleadings\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"complaint\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"answer\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"counterclaim by the defendant against the plaintiff\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"plaintiff's reply to the defendant's counterclaim\"), (\"after the pleadings\", \"the parties may make\", \"motions\"), (\"initial documents filed by parties in a lawsuit\", \"are known as\", \"the initial documents\"), (\"motions\", \"are requests made by the parties\", \"for a judge to make a decision on a particular issue before the trial\")",
-        "summary": "The early phases of a civil action are characterized by many different kinds of motions and mutual fact-finding between the parties, which is known as discovery. A lawsuit starts with pleadings, which include the complaint and the answer. In some cases, a counterclaim by the defendant against the plaintiff may be included, followed by the plaintiff's reply to the defendant's counterclaim. After the pleadings, the parties may make motions. The initial documents filed by parties in a lawsuit are known as the initial documents. Discovery involves a complex process of mutual fact-finding between the parties, including the exchange of information and evidence. Motions are requests made by the parties for a judge to make a decision on a particular issue before the trial.",
-        "answer": "(\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"many different kinds of motions\"), (\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"mutual fact-finding between the parties\", \"is known as\", \"discovery\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"a complex process of mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"lawsuit\", \"starts with\", \"pleadings\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"complaint\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"answer\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"counterclaim by the defendant against the plaintiff\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"plaintiff's reply to the defendant's counterclaim\"), (\"after the pleadings\", \"the parties may make\", \"motions\"), (\"initial documents filed by parties in a lawsuit\", \"are known as\", \"the initial documents\"), (\"motions\", \"are requests made by the parties\", \"for a judge to make a decision on a particular issue before the trial\")",
-        "input_text": "3.3    Motions and Disc overy  Learning Objec tives  After reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do  the following:  1. Explain ho w a law suit can b e dismissed pr ior  to any tr ial.  2. Under stand t he basic pr inciples and pr actices  of disc overy before a tr ial.  The early p hases of a civil action are characterize d by man y  different kinds of motions and a c omp lex proc ess of mutual  fact-finding betw een the p arties that is kno wn as disc overy. A  lawsuit will start with the p leadings15  (comp laint and answ er in  every c ase, and in some c ases a c ounterclaim b y the def endant  against the p laintiff and the p laintiff\u2019s rep ly to the def endant\u2019s  counterclaim). After the p leadings, the p arties ma y make  15. The initial documents file d by parties in a la wsuit. COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  109"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "may serv e an interrogatory on his adv ersary\u2014a written re quest \nfor answ ers to spe cific questions. Or a p arty ma y depose the \nother p arty or a witness. A deposition is a liv e question-and-\nansw er session at which the witness answ ers questions put to \nhim b y one of the p arties \u2019 lawyers. His answ ers are re corde d \nverbatim and ma y be use d at trial. E ach p arty is also entitle d \nto inspe ct boo ks, documents, re cords, and other p hysical items \nin the possession of the other. This is a bro ad right, as it is \nnot limite d to just evidenc e that is admissib le at trial. Disc overy \nof p hysical evidenc e means that a p laintiff ma y inspe ct a \ncomp any\u2019s ac counts, customer lists, assets, profit-and-loss \nstatements, b alanc e she ets, engine ering and quality-c ontro l \nreports, sales reports, and virtually an y other document. \nThe la wyers, not the \ncourt, run the disc overy \nproc ess. F or e xamp le, one \nparty simp ly makes a written \ndemand, stating the time at \nwhich the deposition will \ntake p lace or the type of \ndocuments it wishes to \ninspe ct and make c opies of. \nA p arty unreasonab ly \nresisting disc overy methods \n(whether depositions, \nwritten interrogatories, or \nrequests f or documents) c an be challenge d, ho wever, and COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  113",
-        "page_label": "120",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"global health crisis\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"significant economic disruption\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"believed to have originated in\", \"seafood market in Wuhan, China\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"spread rapidly\", \"around the world\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"widespread lockdowns\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"social distancing measures\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"serving interrogatories\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"deposing the other party or a witness\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"inspecting books, documents, records, and other physical items\"), (\"Legal process\", \"broad right\", \"not limited to just admissible evidence at trial\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"inspecting a company's accounts\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"customer lists\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"assets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"profit-and-loss statements\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"balance sheets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"engineering and quality-control reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"sales reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"virtually any other document\"), (\"Legal process\", \"run by\", \"lawyers\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"written demands for depositions\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"requests for documents\")",
-        "summary": "The COVID-19 pandemic, which is believed to have originated in a seafood market in Wuhan, China, caused a global health crisis and significant economic disruption in 2020. The virus spread rapidly around the world, leading to widespread lockdowns and social distancing measures. In the legal process, parties may serve interrogatories, depose the other party or a witness, and inspect books, documents, records, and other physical items in the possession of the other party. This is a broad right, as it is not limited to just admissible evidence at trial. Discovery of physical evidence may include inspecting a company's accounts, customer lists, assets, profit-and-loss statements, balance sheets, engineering and quality-control reports, sales reports, and virtually any other document. The lawyers, not the court, run the discovery process, which may involve written demands for depositions or requests for documents.",
-        "answer": "(\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"global health crisis\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"significant economic disruption\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"believed to have originated in\", \"seafood market in Wuhan, China\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"spread rapidly\", \"around the world\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"widespread lockdowns\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"social distancing measures\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"serving interrogatories\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"deposing the other party or a witness\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"inspecting books, documents, records, and other physical items\"), (\"Legal process\", \"broad right\", \"not limited to just admissible evidence at trial\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"inspecting a company's accounts\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"customer lists\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"assets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"profit-and-loss statements\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"balance sheets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"engineering and quality-control reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"sales reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"virtually any other document\"), (\"Legal process\", \"run by\", \"lawyers\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"written demands for depositions\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"requests for documents\")",
-        "input_text": "may serv e an interrogatory on his adv ersary\u2014a written re quest  for answ ers to spe cific questions. Or a p arty ma y depose the  other p arty or a witness. A deposition is a liv e question-and- answ er session at which the witness answ ers questions put to  him b y one of the p arties \u2019 lawyers. His answ ers are re corde d  verbatim and ma y be use d at trial. E ach p arty is also entitle d  to inspe ct boo ks, documents, re cords, and other p hysical items  in the possession of the other. This is a bro ad right, as it is  not limite d to just evidenc e that is admissib le at trial. Disc overy  of p hysical evidenc e means that a p laintiff ma y inspe ct a  comp any\u2019s ac counts, customer lists, assets, profit-and-loss  statements, b alanc e she ets, engine ering and quality-c ontro l  reports, sales reports, and virtually an y other document.  The la wyers, not the  court, run the disc overy  proc ess. F or e xamp le, one  party simp ly makes a written  demand, stating the time at  which the deposition will  take p lace or the type of  documents it wishes to  inspe ct and make c opies of.  A p arty unreasonab ly  resisting disc overy methods  (whether depositions,  written interrogatories, or  requests f or documents) c an be challenge d, ho wever, and COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  113"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "judge who de cides that a dire cted verdict is appropriate will \nusually w ait to se e what the jury\u2019s v erdict is. If it is f avorab le \nto the p arty the judge thinks should win, she c an rely on that \nverdict. If the v erdict is f or the other p arty, he c an grant the \nmotion f or judgment n. o.v. This is a saf er w ay to proc eed \nbecause if the judge is rev ersed on appeal, a new trial is not \nnecessary . The jury\u2019s v erdict alw ays can be restore d, whereas \nwithout a jury v erdict (as happens when a dire cted verdict is \ngrante d bef ore the c ase goes to the jury), the entire c ase must be \npresente d to a new jury . Ferlito v . Johnson & Jo hnson (Se ction \n3.9 \u201cCases \u201d) illustrates the judgment n. o.v. proc ess in a c ase \nwhere the judge allo wed the c ase to go to a jury that w as overly \nsymp athetic to the p laintiffs. \nKey Takeaway \nThe purp ose o f a tr ial judge is t o ensur e jus tice to all \nparties to the law suit. The judge pr esides , instructs \nthe jur y, and may limit who t estifies and what t hey \nhave come to . Judgment n. o.v. rev erses the v erdict and a wards \njudgment to the p arty against whom the jury\u2019s v erdict w as made. 124  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "131",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Trial judge\", \"purpose\", \"ensure justice to all parties involved in the lawsuit\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"presides over\", \"trial\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"instructions\", \"jury\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"limits\", \"testimonies\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"may limit\", \"what they have come to present\"), (\"Judgment n.o.v.\", \"process\", \"reverses the verdict and awards judgment to the party against whom the jury's verdict was made\"), (\"Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson\", \"illustrates\", \"judgment n.o.v. process\")",
-        "summary": "The purpose of a trial judge is to ensure justice to all parties involved in the lawsuit. They preside over the trial, instruct the jury, and may limit who testifies and what they have come to present. The judgment n.o.v. process, as illustrated in the case \"Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson,\" reverses the verdict and awards judgment to the party against whom the jury's verdict was made. The song \"Here Comes the Boom\" was originally released by American rock band Nelly in 2002 and was featured in the soundtrack of the film \"The Longest Yard.\" The song \"Here Comes the Boom\" was also released by American rock band Nelly.",
-        "answer": "(\"Trial judge\", \"purpose\", \"ensure justice to all parties involved in the lawsuit\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"presides over\", \"trial\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"instructions\", \"jury\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"limits\", \"testimonies\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"may limit\", \"what they have come to present\"), (\"Judgment n.o.v.\", \"process\", \"reverses the verdict and awards judgment to the party against whom the jury's verdict was made\"), (\"Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson\", \"illustrates\", \"judgment n.o.v. process\")",
-        "input_text": "judge who de cides that a dire cted verdict is appropriate will  usually w ait to se e what the jury\u2019s v erdict is. If it is f avorab le  to the p arty the judge thinks should win, she c an rely on that  verdict. If the v erdict is f or the other p arty, he c an grant the  motion f or judgment n. o.v. This is a saf er w ay to proc eed  because if the judge is rev ersed on appeal, a new trial is not  necessary . The jury\u2019s v erdict alw ays can be restore d, whereas  without a jury v erdict (as happens when a dire cted verdict is  grante d bef ore the c ase goes to the jury), the entire c ase must be  presente d to a new jury . Ferlito v . Johnson & Jo hnson (Se ction  3.9 \u201cCases \u201d) illustrates the judgment n. o.v. proc ess in a c ase  where the judge allo wed the c ase to go to a jury that w as overly  symp athetic to the p laintiffs.  Key Takeaway  The purp ose o f a tr ial judge is t o ensur e jus tice to all  parties to the law suit. The judge pr esides , instructs  the jur y, and may limit who t estifies and what t hey  have come to . Judgment n. o.v. rev erses the v erdict and a wards  judgment to the p arty against whom the jury\u2019s v erdict w as made. 124  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "defendant will often den y all the allegations of the c omp laint \nor will admit to c ertain of its allegations and den y others. \nA comp laint and subse quent p leadings are usually quite \ngeneral and giv e little detail. Cases c an be de cide d on the \npleadings alone in the f ollowing situations: (1) If the def endant \nfails to answ er the c omp laint, the c ourt c an enter a def ault \njudgment, a warding the p laintiff what he se eks. (2) The \ndefendant c an mo ve to dismiss the c omp laint on the grounds \nthat the p laintiff f ailed to \u201cstate a claim on which relief c an \nbe grante d,\u201d or on the b asis that there is no subje ct matter \njurisdiction f or the c ourt chosen b y the p laintiff, or on the \nbasis that there is no personal jurisdiction o ver the def endant. \nThe def endant is sa ying, in eff ect, that ev en if all the p laintiff\u2019s \nallegations are true, they do not amount to a legal claim that \ncan be heard b y the c ourt. F or e xamp le, a claim that the \ndefendant induc ed a w oman to stop dating the p laintiff (a \nso-called alienation of aff ections c ause of action) is no longer \nactionab le in US state c ourts, and an y court will dismiss the \ncomp laint without an y further proc eedings. (This type of \ndismissal is oc casionally still c alled a demurrer.) \nA third kind of dismissal c an take p lace on a motion f or \nsummary judgment.17\n If there is no triab le question of f act \n17. As in a dire cted verdict, when a judge grants summary judgment, she \nhas c onclude d that there are no matters of la w or f act on which COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  111",
-        "page_label": "118",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"defendant\", \"often\", \"deny allegations of the complaint\"), (\"defendant\", \"admit to\", \"certain allegations\"), (\"complaint\", \"usually\", \"general and give little detail\"), (\"cases\", \"can be decided on the pleadings alone\", \"following situations\"), (\"defendant\", \"fails to answer the complaint\", \"court enters default judgment\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"grounds\"), (\"plaintiff\", \"fails to\", \"state a claim on which relief can be granted\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no personal jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"says\", \"all plaintiff's allegations do not amount to a legal claim\"), (\"alienation of affections cause of action\", \"no longer actionable\", \"US state courts\"), (\"court\", \"dismisses the complaint\", \"no further proceedings\"), (\"motion for summary judgment\", \"can take place\", \"no trial question of law or fact\"), (\"court\", \"grants summary judgment\", \"no matters of law or fact\")",
-        "summary": "In legal cases, defendants often deny allegations of the complaint, while admitting to certain allegations. Complaints are usually general and provide little detail. Cases can be decided on the pleadings alone in certain situations. If a defendant fails to answer the complaint, the court enters a default judgment. A defendant may move to dismiss the complaint based on grounds such as the plaintiff failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted, no subject matter jurisdiction, or no personal jurisdiction. A defendant may also argue that all of the plaintiff's allegations do not amount to a legal claim. The alienation of affections cause of action is no longer actionable in US state courts. If a court dismisses the complaint, there are no further proceedings. A motion for summary judgment can take place when there are no trial questions of law or fact. If the court grants summary judgment, there are no matters of law or fact remaining.",
-        "answer": "(\"defendant\", \"often\", \"deny allegations of the complaint\"), (\"defendant\", \"admit to\", \"certain allegations\"), (\"complaint\", \"usually\", \"general and give little detail\"), (\"cases\", \"can be decided on the pleadings alone\", \"following situations\"), (\"defendant\", \"fails to answer the complaint\", \"court enters default judgment\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"grounds\"), (\"plaintiff\", \"fails to\", \"state a claim on which relief can be granted\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no personal jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"says\", \"all plaintiff's allegations do not amount to a legal claim\"), (\"alienation of affections cause of action\", \"no longer actionable\", \"US state courts\"), (\"court\", \"dismisses the complaint\", \"no further proceedings\"), (\"motion for summary judgment\", \"can take place\", \"no trial question of law or fact\"), (\"court\", \"grants summary judgment\", \"no matters of law or fact\")",
-        "input_text": "defendant will often den y all the allegations of the c omp laint  or will admit to c ertain of its allegations and den y others.  A comp laint and subse quent p leadings are usually quite  general and giv e little detail. Cases c an be de cide d on the  pleadings alone in the f ollowing situations: (1) If the def endant  fails to answ er the c omp laint, the c ourt c an enter a def ault  judgment, a warding the p laintiff what he se eks. (2) The  defendant c an mo ve to dismiss the c omp laint on the grounds  that the p laintiff f ailed to \u201cstate a claim on which relief c an  be grante d,\u201d or on the b asis that there is no subje ct matter  jurisdiction f or the c ourt chosen b y the p laintiff, or on the  basis that there is no personal jurisdiction o ver the def endant.  The def endant is sa ying, in eff ect, that ev en if all the p laintiff\u2019s  allegations are true, they do not amount to a legal claim that  can be heard b y the c ourt. F or e xamp le, a claim that the  defendant induc ed a w oman to stop dating the p laintiff (a  so-called alienation of aff ections c ause of action) is no longer  actionab le in US state c ourts, and an y court will dismiss the  comp laint without an y further proc eedings. (This type of  dismissal is oc casionally still c alled a demurrer.)  A third kind of dismissal c an take p lace on a motion f or  summary judgment.17  If there is no triab le question of f act  17. As in a dire cted verdict, when a judge grants summary judgment, she  has c onclude d that there are no matters of la w or f act on which COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  111"
-      }
-    ],
-    "signature_instructions": "Point out what the Summary is missing from the text\n\n    ",
-    "signature_prefix": "Missing Kg:"
-  },
-  "code_signature.predictor": {
-    "lm": null,
-    "traces": [],
-    "train": [],
-    "demos": [
-      {
-        "text": "judge who de cides that a dire cted verdict is appropriate will \nusually w ait to se e what the jury\u2019s v erdict is. If it is f avorab le \nto the p arty the judge thinks should win, she c an rely on that \nverdict. If the v erdict is f or the other p arty, he c an grant the \nmotion f or judgment n. o.v. This is a saf er w ay to proc eed \nbecause if the judge is rev ersed on appeal, a new trial is not \nnecessary . The jury\u2019s v erdict alw ays can be restore d, whereas \nwithout a jury v erdict (as happens when a dire cted verdict is \ngrante d bef ore the c ase goes to the jury), the entire c ase must be \npresente d to a new jury . Ferlito v . Johnson & Jo hnson (Se ction \n3.9 \u201cCases \u201d) illustrates the judgment n. o.v. proc ess in a c ase \nwhere the judge allo wed the c ase to go to a jury that w as overly \nsymp athetic to the p laintiffs. \nKey Takeaway \nThe purp ose o f a tr ial judge is t o ensur e jus tice to all \nparties to the law suit. The judge pr esides , instructs \nthe jur y, and may limit who t estifies and what t hey \nhave come to . Judgment n. o.v. rev erses the v erdict and a wards \njudgment to the p arty against whom the jury\u2019s v erdict w as made. 124  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "131",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Trial judge\", \"purpose\", \"ensure justice to all parties involved in the lawsuit\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"presides over\", \"trial\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"instructions\", \"jury\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"limits\", \"testimonies\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"may limit\", \"what they have come to present\"), (\"Judgment n.o.v.\", \"process\", \"reverses the verdict and awards judgment to the party against whom the jury's verdict was made\"), (\"Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson\", \"illustrates\", \"judgment n.o.v. process\")",
-        "summary": "The purpose of a trial judge is to ensure justice to all parties involved in the lawsuit. They preside over the trial, instruct the jury, and may limit who testifies and what they have come to present. The judgment n.o.v. process, as illustrated in the case \"Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson,\" reverses the verdict and awards judgment to the party against whom the jury's verdict was made. The song \"Here Comes the Boom\" was originally released by American rock band Nelly in 2002 and was featured in the soundtrack of the film \"The Longest Yard.\" The song \"Here Comes the Boom\" was also released by American rock band Nelly.",
-        "answer": "(\"Trial judge\", \"purpose\", \"ensure justice to all parties involved in the lawsuit\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"presides over\", \"trial\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"instructions\", \"jury\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"limits\", \"testimonies\"), (\"Trial judge\", \"may limit\", \"what they have come to present\"), (\"Judgment n.o.v.\", \"process\", \"reverses the verdict and awards judgment to the party against whom the jury's verdict was made\"), (\"Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson\", \"illustrates\", \"judgment n.o.v. process\")",
-        "input_text": "judge who de cides that a dire cted verdict is appropriate will  usually w ait to se e what the jury\u2019s v erdict is. If it is f avorab le  to the p arty the judge thinks should win, she c an rely on that  verdict. If the v erdict is f or the other p arty, he c an grant the  motion f or judgment n. o.v. This is a saf er w ay to proc eed  because if the judge is rev ersed on appeal, a new trial is not  necessary . The jury\u2019s v erdict alw ays can be restore d, whereas  without a jury v erdict (as happens when a dire cted verdict is  grante d bef ore the c ase goes to the jury), the entire c ase must be  presente d to a new jury . Ferlito v . Johnson & Jo hnson (Se ction  3.9 \u201cCases \u201d) illustrates the judgment n. o.v. proc ess in a c ase  where the judge allo wed the c ase to go to a jury that w as overly  symp athetic to the p laintiffs.  Key Takeaway  The purp ose o f a tr ial judge is t o ensur e jus tice to all  parties to the law suit. The judge pr esides , instructs  the jur y, and may limit who t estifies and what t hey  have come to . Judgment n. o.v. rev erses the v erdict and a wards  judgment to the p arty against whom the jury\u2019s v erdict w as made. 124  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "may serv e an interrogatory on his adv ersary\u2014a written re quest \nfor answ ers to spe cific questions. Or a p arty ma y depose the \nother p arty or a witness. A deposition is a liv e question-and-\nansw er session at which the witness answ ers questions put to \nhim b y one of the p arties \u2019 lawyers. His answ ers are re corde d \nverbatim and ma y be use d at trial. E ach p arty is also entitle d \nto inspe ct boo ks, documents, re cords, and other p hysical items \nin the possession of the other. This is a bro ad right, as it is \nnot limite d to just evidenc e that is admissib le at trial. Disc overy \nof p hysical evidenc e means that a p laintiff ma y inspe ct a \ncomp any\u2019s ac counts, customer lists, assets, profit-and-loss \nstatements, b alanc e she ets, engine ering and quality-c ontro l \nreports, sales reports, and virtually an y other document. \nThe la wyers, not the \ncourt, run the disc overy \nproc ess. F or e xamp le, one \nparty simp ly makes a written \ndemand, stating the time at \nwhich the deposition will \ntake p lace or the type of \ndocuments it wishes to \ninspe ct and make c opies of. \nA p arty unreasonab ly \nresisting disc overy methods \n(whether depositions, \nwritten interrogatories, or \nrequests f or documents) c an be challenge d, ho wever, and COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  113",
-        "page_label": "120",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"global health crisis\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"significant economic disruption\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"believed to have originated in\", \"seafood market in Wuhan, China\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"spread rapidly\", \"around the world\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"widespread lockdowns\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"social distancing measures\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"serving interrogatories\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"deposing the other party or a witness\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"inspecting books, documents, records, and other physical items\"), (\"Legal process\", \"broad right\", \"not limited to just admissible evidence at trial\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"inspecting a company's accounts\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"customer lists\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"assets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"profit-and-loss statements\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"balance sheets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"engineering and quality-control reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"sales reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"virtually any other document\"), (\"Legal process\", \"run by\", \"lawyers\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"written demands for depositions\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"requests for documents\")",
-        "summary": "The COVID-19 pandemic, which is believed to have originated in a seafood market in Wuhan, China, caused a global health crisis and significant economic disruption in 2020. The virus spread rapidly around the world, leading to widespread lockdowns and social distancing measures. In the legal process, parties may serve interrogatories, depose the other party or a witness, and inspect books, documents, records, and other physical items in the possession of the other party. This is a broad right, as it is not limited to just admissible evidence at trial. Discovery of physical evidence may include inspecting a company's accounts, customer lists, assets, profit-and-loss statements, balance sheets, engineering and quality-control reports, sales reports, and virtually any other document. The lawyers, not the court, run the discovery process, which may involve written demands for depositions or requests for documents.",
-        "answer": "(\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"global health crisis\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"caused\", \"significant economic disruption\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"believed to have originated in\", \"seafood market in Wuhan, China\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"spread rapidly\", \"around the world\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"widespread lockdowns\"), (\"COVID-19 pandemic\", \"led to\", \"social distancing measures\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"serving interrogatories\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"deposing the other party or a witness\"), (\"Legal process\", \"includes\", \"inspecting books, documents, records, and other physical items\"), (\"Legal process\", \"broad right\", \"not limited to just admissible evidence at trial\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"inspecting a company's accounts\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"customer lists\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"assets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"profit-and-loss statements\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"balance sheets\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"engineering and quality-control reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"sales reports\"), (\"Discovery of physical evidence\", \"may include\", \"virtually any other document\"), (\"Legal process\", \"run by\", \"lawyers\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"written demands for depositions\"), (\"Legal process\", \"may involve\", \"requests for documents\")",
-        "input_text": "may serv e an interrogatory on his adv ersary\u2014a written re quest  for answ ers to spe cific questions. Or a p arty ma y depose the  other p arty or a witness. A deposition is a liv e question-and- answ er session at which the witness answ ers questions put to  him b y one of the p arties \u2019 lawyers. His answ ers are re corde d  verbatim and ma y be use d at trial. E ach p arty is also entitle d  to inspe ct boo ks, documents, re cords, and other p hysical items  in the possession of the other. This is a bro ad right, as it is  not limite d to just evidenc e that is admissib le at trial. Disc overy  of p hysical evidenc e means that a p laintiff ma y inspe ct a  comp any\u2019s ac counts, customer lists, assets, profit-and-loss  statements, b alanc e she ets, engine ering and quality-c ontro l  reports, sales reports, and virtually an y other document.  The la wyers, not the  court, run the disc overy  proc ess. F or e xamp le, one  party simp ly makes a written  demand, stating the time at  which the deposition will  take p lace or the type of  documents it wishes to  inspe ct and make c opies of.  A p arty unreasonab ly  resisting disc overy methods  (whether depositions,  written interrogatories, or  requests f or documents) c an be challenge d, ho wever, and COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  113"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "defendant will often den y all the allegations of the c omp laint \nor will admit to c ertain of its allegations and den y others. \nA comp laint and subse quent p leadings are usually quite \ngeneral and giv e little detail. Cases c an be de cide d on the \npleadings alone in the f ollowing situations: (1) If the def endant \nfails to answ er the c omp laint, the c ourt c an enter a def ault \njudgment, a warding the p laintiff what he se eks. (2) The \ndefendant c an mo ve to dismiss the c omp laint on the grounds \nthat the p laintiff f ailed to \u201cstate a claim on which relief c an \nbe grante d,\u201d or on the b asis that there is no subje ct matter \njurisdiction f or the c ourt chosen b y the p laintiff, or on the \nbasis that there is no personal jurisdiction o ver the def endant. \nThe def endant is sa ying, in eff ect, that ev en if all the p laintiff\u2019s \nallegations are true, they do not amount to a legal claim that \ncan be heard b y the c ourt. F or e xamp le, a claim that the \ndefendant induc ed a w oman to stop dating the p laintiff (a \nso-called alienation of aff ections c ause of action) is no longer \nactionab le in US state c ourts, and an y court will dismiss the \ncomp laint without an y further proc eedings. (This type of \ndismissal is oc casionally still c alled a demurrer.) \nA third kind of dismissal c an take p lace on a motion f or \nsummary judgment.17\n If there is no triab le question of f act \n17. As in a dire cted verdict, when a judge grants summary judgment, she \nhas c onclude d that there are no matters of la w or f act on which COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  111",
-        "page_label": "118",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"defendant\", \"often\", \"deny allegations of the complaint\"), (\"defendant\", \"admit to\", \"certain allegations\"), (\"complaint\", \"usually\", \"general and give little detail\"), (\"cases\", \"can be decided on the pleadings alone\", \"following situations\"), (\"defendant\", \"fails to answer the complaint\", \"court enters default judgment\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"grounds\"), (\"plaintiff\", \"fails to\", \"state a claim on which relief can be granted\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no personal jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"says\", \"all plaintiff's allegations do not amount to a legal claim\"), (\"alienation of affections cause of action\", \"no longer actionable\", \"US state courts\"), (\"court\", \"dismisses the complaint\", \"no further proceedings\"), (\"motion for summary judgment\", \"can take place\", \"no trial question of law or fact\"), (\"court\", \"grants summary judgment\", \"no matters of law or fact\")",
-        "summary": "In legal cases, defendants often deny allegations of the complaint, while admitting to certain allegations. Complaints are usually general and provide little detail. Cases can be decided on the pleadings alone in certain situations. If a defendant fails to answer the complaint, the court enters a default judgment. A defendant may move to dismiss the complaint based on grounds such as the plaintiff failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted, no subject matter jurisdiction, or no personal jurisdiction. A defendant may also argue that all of the plaintiff's allegations do not amount to a legal claim. The alienation of affections cause of action is no longer actionable in US state courts. If a court dismisses the complaint, there are no further proceedings. A motion for summary judgment can take place when there are no trial questions of law or fact. If the court grants summary judgment, there are no matters of law or fact remaining.",
-        "answer": "(\"defendant\", \"often\", \"deny allegations of the complaint\"), (\"defendant\", \"admit to\", \"certain allegations\"), (\"complaint\", \"usually\", \"general and give little detail\"), (\"cases\", \"can be decided on the pleadings alone\", \"following situations\"), (\"defendant\", \"fails to answer the complaint\", \"court enters default judgment\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"grounds\"), (\"plaintiff\", \"fails to\", \"state a claim on which relief can be granted\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"moves to dismiss the complaint\", \"no personal jurisdiction\"), (\"defendant\", \"says\", \"all plaintiff's allegations do not amount to a legal claim\"), (\"alienation of affections cause of action\", \"no longer actionable\", \"US state courts\"), (\"court\", \"dismisses the complaint\", \"no further proceedings\"), (\"motion for summary judgment\", \"can take place\", \"no trial question of law or fact\"), (\"court\", \"grants summary judgment\", \"no matters of law or fact\")",
-        "input_text": "defendant will often den y all the allegations of the c omp laint  or will admit to c ertain of its allegations and den y others.  A comp laint and subse quent p leadings are usually quite  general and giv e little detail. Cases c an be de cide d on the  pleadings alone in the f ollowing situations: (1) If the def endant  fails to answ er the c omp laint, the c ourt c an enter a def ault  judgment, a warding the p laintiff what he se eks. (2) The  defendant c an mo ve to dismiss the c omp laint on the grounds  that the p laintiff f ailed to \u201cstate a claim on which relief c an  be grante d,\u201d or on the b asis that there is no subje ct matter  jurisdiction f or the c ourt chosen b y the p laintiff, or on the  basis that there is no personal jurisdiction o ver the def endant.  The def endant is sa ying, in eff ect, that ev en if all the p laintiff\u2019s  allegations are true, they do not amount to a legal claim that  can be heard b y the c ourt. F or e xamp le, a claim that the  defendant induc ed a w oman to stop dating the p laintiff (a  so-called alienation of aff ections c ause of action) is no longer  actionab le in US state c ourts, and an y court will dismiss the  comp laint without an y further proc eedings. (This type of  dismissal is oc casionally still c alled a demurrer.)  A third kind of dismissal c an take p lace on a motion f or  summary judgment.17  If there is no triab le question of f act  17. As in a dire cted verdict, when a judge grants summary judgment, she  has c onclude d that there are no matters of la w or f act on which COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  111"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "3.3    Motions and Disc overy \nLearning Objec tives \nAfter reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do \nthe following: \n1. Explain ho w a law suit can b e dismissed pr ior \nto any tr ial. \n2. Under stand t he basic pr inciples and pr actices \nof disc overy before a tr ial. \nThe early p hases of a civil action are characterize d by man y \ndifferent kinds of motions and a c omp lex proc ess of mutual \nfact-finding betw een the p arties that is kno wn as disc overy. A \nlawsuit will start with the p leadings15\n (comp laint and answ er in \nevery c ase, and in some c ases a c ounterclaim b y the def endant \nagainst the p laintiff and the p laintiff\u2019s rep ly to the def endant\u2019s \ncounterclaim). After the p leadings, the p arties ma y make \n15. The initial documents file d by parties in a la wsuit. COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  109",
-        "page_label": "116",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"many different kinds of motions\"), (\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"mutual fact-finding between the parties\", \"is known as\", \"discovery\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"a complex process of mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"lawsuit\", \"starts with\", \"pleadings\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"complaint\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"answer\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"counterclaim by the defendant against the plaintiff\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"plaintiff's reply to the defendant's counterclaim\"), (\"after the pleadings\", \"the parties may make\", \"motions\"), (\"initial documents filed by parties in a lawsuit\", \"are known as\", \"the initial documents\"), (\"motions\", \"are requests made by the parties\", \"for a judge to make a decision on a particular issue before the trial\")",
-        "summary": "The early phases of a civil action are characterized by many different kinds of motions and mutual fact-finding between the parties, which is known as discovery. A lawsuit starts with pleadings, which include the complaint and the answer. In some cases, a counterclaim by the defendant against the plaintiff may be included, followed by the plaintiff's reply to the defendant's counterclaim. After the pleadings, the parties may make motions. The initial documents filed by parties in a lawsuit are known as the initial documents. Discovery involves a complex process of mutual fact-finding between the parties, including the exchange of information and evidence. Motions are requests made by the parties for a judge to make a decision on a particular issue before the trial.",
-        "answer": "(\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"many different kinds of motions\"), (\"early phases of a civil action\", \"are characterized by\", \"mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"mutual fact-finding between the parties\", \"is known as\", \"discovery\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"a complex process of mutual fact-finding between the parties\"), (\"lawsuit\", \"starts with\", \"pleadings\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"complaint\"), (\"pleadings\", \"include\", \"answer\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"counterclaim by the defendant against the plaintiff\"), (\"some cases\", \"include\", \"plaintiff's reply to the defendant's counterclaim\"), (\"after the pleadings\", \"the parties may make\", \"motions\"), (\"initial documents filed by parties in a lawsuit\", \"are known as\", \"the initial documents\"), (\"motions\", \"are requests made by the parties\", \"for a judge to make a decision on a particular issue before the trial\")",
-        "input_text": "3.3    Motions and Disc overy  Learning Objec tives  After reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do  the following:  1. Explain ho w a law suit can b e dismissed pr ior  to any tr ial.  2. Under stand t he basic pr inciples and pr actices  of disc overy before a tr ial.  The early p hases of a civil action are characterize d by man y  different kinds of motions and a c omp lex proc ess of mutual  fact-finding betw een the p arties that is kno wn as disc overy. A  lawsuit will start with the p leadings15  (comp laint and answ er in  every c ase, and in some c ases a c ounterclaim b y the def endant  against the p laintiff and the p laintiff\u2019s rep ly to the def endant\u2019s  counterclaim). After the p leadings, the p arties ma y make  15. The initial documents file d by parties in a la wsuit. COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  109"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "amount a warde d to the winning p arty. In an appeal, the \nappellant aims to sho w that there w as some prejudicial error \ncommitte d by the trial judge. There will be errors, of c ourse, \nbut the errors must be signific ant (i. e., not harmless). The b asic \nidea is f or an appellate c ourt to ensure that a reasonab ly fair \ntrial w as pro vide d to both sides. Enf orcement of the c ourt\u2019s \njudgment\u2014an a ward of money , an injunction\u2014is usually \nstayed (postpone d) until the appellate c ourt has rule d. As \nnote d earlier, the p arty making the appeal is c alled the \nappellant, and the p arty def ending the judgment is the appelle e \n(or in some c ourts, the petitioner and the respondent). \nDuring the trial, the losing p arty ma y ha ve obje cted to \ncertain proc edural de cisions b y the judge. In c ompiling a \nrecord on appeal, the appellant ne eds to sho w the appellate \ncourt some e xamp les of mistakes made b y the judge\u2014f or \nexamp le, ha ving errone ously admitte d evidenc e, ha ving f ailed \nto admit proper evidenc e that should ha ve be en admitte d, or \nhaving wrongly instructe d the jury . The appellate c ourt must \ndetermine if those mistakes w ere serious enough to amount to \nprejudicial error. \nAppellate and trial proc edures are diff erent. The appellate \ncourt does not hear witnesses or ac cept evidenc e. It reviews the \nrecord of the c ase\u2014the transc ript of the witnesses \u2019 testimon y \nand the documents re ceived into evidenc e at trial\u2014to try to \nfind a legal error on a spe cific re quest of one or both of the \nparties. The p arties \u2019 lawyers prep are briefs (written statements \ncontaining the f acts in the c ase), the proc edural steps taken, COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  127",
-        "page_label": "134",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"record of the case\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"determines\", \"legal error\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"considers\", \"specific request of parties\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"enforces\", \"court's judgment\"), (\"Appellant\", \"makes\", \"appeal\"), (\"Appellee\", \"defends\", \"judgment\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"hears\", \"witnesses\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"accepts\", \"evidence\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"receives\", \"transcript of testimonies\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"documents received as evidence\")",
-        "summary": "The song \"Here Comes the Boom\" was originally released by American rock band Nelly in 2002. It was featured in the soundtrack of the film \"The Longest Yard.\" The legal process of an appeal involves the appellant, who is the party making the appeal, and the appellee, who is the party defending the judgment. The appellate court reviews the record of the case, which includes the transcript of witnesses' testimonies and documents received as evidence during the trial, to determine if there were any legal errors. The court may enforce the judgment, such as awarding money or issuing an injunction, after the appellate court has ruled.",
-        "answer": "(\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"record of the case\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"determines\", \"legal error\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"considers\", \"specific request of parties\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"enforces\", \"court's judgment\"), (\"Appellant\", \"makes\", \"appeal\"), (\"Appellee\", \"defends\", \"judgment\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"hears\", \"witnesses\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"accepts\", \"evidence\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"receives\", \"transcript of testimonies\"), (\"Appellate court\", \"reviews\", \"documents received as evidence\")",
-        "input_text": "amount a warde d to the winning p arty. In an appeal, the  appellant aims to sho w that there w as some prejudicial error  committe d by the trial judge. There will be errors, of c ourse,  but the errors must be signific ant (i. e., not harmless). The b asic  idea is f or an appellate c ourt to ensure that a reasonab ly fair  trial w as pro vide d to both sides. Enf orcement of the c ourt\u2019s  judgment\u2014an a ward of money , an injunction\u2014is usually  stayed (postpone d) until the appellate c ourt has rule d. As  note d earlier, the p arty making the appeal is c alled the  appellant, and the p arty def ending the judgment is the appelle e  (or in some c ourts, the petitioner and the respondent).  During the trial, the losing p arty ma y ha ve obje cted to  certain proc edural de cisions b y the judge. In c ompiling a  record on appeal, the appellant ne eds to sho w the appellate  court some e xamp les of mistakes made b y the judge\u2014f or  examp le, ha ving errone ously admitte d evidenc e, ha ving f ailed  to admit proper evidenc e that should ha ve be en admitte d, or  having wrongly instructe d the jury . The appellate c ourt must  determine if those mistakes w ere serious enough to amount to  prejudicial error.  Appellate and trial proc edures are diff erent. The appellate  court does not hear witnesses or ac cept evidenc e. It reviews the  record of the c ase\u2014the transc ript of the witnesses \u2019 testimon y  and the documents re ceived into evidenc e at trial\u2014to try to  find a legal error on a spe cific re quest of one or both of the  parties. The p arties \u2019 lawyers prep are briefs (written statements  containing the f acts in the c ase), the proc edural steps taken, COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  127"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "or la w, there is no reason to ha ve a trial. F or e xamp le, the \nplaintiff sues on a promissory note and, at deposition (an oral \nexamination under o ath), the def endant admits ha ving made \nno p ayment on the note and off ers no e xcuse that w ould be \nrecognizab le as a reason not to p ay. There is no reason to ha ve \na trial, and the c ourt should grant summary judgment. \n3.3.2    Disc overy \nIf there is a f actual dispute, the c ase will usually in volve some \ndegre e of disc overy, where each p arty tries to get as much \ninformation out of the other p arty as the rules allo w. Until the \n1940s, when disc overy be came p art of civil proc edure rules, a \nlawsuit w as fre quently a game in which each p arty hid as much \ninformation as possib le and trie d to surprise the other p arty in \ncourt. \nBeginning with a change in the F ederal Rules of Civil \nProc edure adopte d b y the Supreme Court in 1938 and \nsubse quently f ollowed by man y of the states, the p arties are \nentitle d to learn the f acts of the c ase bef ore trial. The b asic idea \nis to help the p arties determine what the evidenc e might be, \nwho the potential witnesses are, and what spe cific issues are \nrelev ant. Disc overy c an proc eed by sev eral methods. A p arty \nreasonab le pe ople would disagre e. Summary judgment is a final \norder, and it is appealab le. 112  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "119",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"plaintiff\", \"sues on\", \"promissory note\"), (\"deposition\", \"involves\", \"admission of no payment on note\"), (\"defendant\", \"offers no excuse\", \"recognizable as reason not to pay\"), (\"court\", \"should grant\", \"summary judgment\"), (\"discovery\", \"occurs\", \"actual dispute\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"getting information from other party\"), (\"before 1940s\", \"lawsuit\", \"hide information and surprise other party\"), (\"1938\", \"Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\", \"adopted by Supreme Court\"), (\"1938\", \"change\", \"allow parties to learn facts before trial\"), (\"basic idea\", \"discovery\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"discovery\", \"can proceed\", \"several methods\"), (\"reasonable people\", \"would disagree\", \"\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\"), (\"discovery\", \"purpose\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\")",
-        "summary": "The legal process begins with a plaintiff suing on a promissory note, leading to a deposition where the defendant admits to not making any payments on the note. The defendant offers no excuse for not paying, which can be recognized as a reason not to pay. In such cases, the court should grant summary judgment. Discovery occurs when there is an actual dispute, and its purpose is to help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues. Discovery can proceed through several methods. If reasonable people would disagree, summary judgment cannot be granted. Summary judgment is a final order that is appealable.",
-        "answer": "(\"plaintiff\", \"sues on\", \"promissory note\"), (\"deposition\", \"involves\", \"admission of no payment on note\"), (\"defendant\", \"offers no excuse\", \"recognizable as reason not to pay\"), (\"court\", \"should grant\", \"summary judgment\"), (\"discovery\", \"occurs\", \"actual dispute\"), (\"discovery\", \"involves\", \"getting information from other party\"), (\"before 1940s\", \"lawsuit\", \"hide information and surprise other party\"), (\"1938\", \"Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\", \"adopted by Supreme Court\"), (\"1938\", \"change\", \"allow parties to learn facts before trial\"), (\"basic idea\", \"discovery\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"discovery\", \"can proceed\", \"several methods\"), (\"reasonable people\", \"would disagree\", \"\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\"), (\"discovery\", \"purpose\", \"help parties determine evidence, potential witnesses, and specific issues\"), (\"summary judgment\", \"final order\", \"appealable\")",
-        "input_text": "or la w, there is no reason to ha ve a trial. F or e xamp le, the  plaintiff sues on a promissory note and, at deposition (an oral  examination under o ath), the def endant admits ha ving made  no p ayment on the note and off ers no e xcuse that w ould be  recognizab le as a reason not to p ay. There is no reason to ha ve  a trial, and the c ourt should grant summary judgment.  3.3.2    Disc overy  If there is a f actual dispute, the c ase will usually in volve some  degre e of disc overy, where each p arty tries to get as much  information out of the other p arty as the rules allo w. Until the  1940s, when disc overy be came p art of civil proc edure rules, a  lawsuit w as fre quently a game in which each p arty hid as much  information as possib le and trie d to surprise the other p arty in  court.  Beginning with a change in the F ederal Rules of Civil  Proc edure adopte d b y the Supreme Court in 1938 and  subse quently f ollowed by man y of the states, the p arties are  entitle d to learn the f acts of the c ase bef ore trial. The b asic idea  is to help the p arties determine what the evidenc e might be,  who the potential witnesses are, and what spe cific issues are  relev ant. Disc overy c an proc eed by sev eral methods. A p arty  reasonab le pe ople would disagre e. Summary judgment is a final  order, and it is appealab le. 112  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "the f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction o ver the c ase. \nBut f ederal c ourts will also ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction \nover certain c ases that ha ve only a state-b ased cause of action; \nthose c ases are ones in which the p laintiff(s) and the \ndefendant(s) are from diff erent states and the amount in \ncontro versy is more than $75,000. State c ourts c an ha ve subje ct \nmatter jurisdiction o ver certain c ases that ha ve only a f ederal-\nbased cause of action. The Supreme Court has no w made clear \nthat state c ourts ha ve concurrent jurisdiction13\n of an y federal \ncause of action unless Congress has giv en exclusiv e jurisdiction \nto federal c ourts. \nIn short, a c ase with a f ederal question c an be often be heard \nin either state or f ederal c ourt, and a c ase that has p arties with a \ndiversity of citizenship c an be heard in state c ourts or in f ederal \ncourts where the tests of c omp lete div ersity and amount in \ncontro versy are met. \nWhether a c ase will be heard in a state c ourt or mo ved to \na federal c ourt will depend on the p arties. If a p laintiff files a \ncase in state trial c ourt where c oncurrent jurisdiction app lies, \na def endant ma y (or ma y not) ask that the c ase be remo ved to \nfederal district c ourt. \n13. When both state and f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction \nof a c ase, there is c oncurrent jurisdiction. Only one c ourt will hear \nthe c ase betw een the p arties and will hear all c auses of action, \nwhether b ased on state or f ederal la w. 98  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "105",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"the case\"), (\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a state-based cause of action\"), (\"State courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Supreme Court\", \"has made clear\", \"state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over any federal cause of action unless Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"either state or federal court\"), (\"Diversity cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts or federal courts where the tests of complete diversity and amount in controversy are met\"), (\"Case\", \"will\", \"be determined by the parties\"), (\"Plaintiff\", \"can file a case in\", \"state trial court where concurrent jurisdiction applies\"), (\"Defendant\", \"may or may not ask\", \"for the case to be removed to federal district court\"), (\"State and federal courts\", \"have concurrent jurisdiction over a case\", \"when both have subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"Congress\", \"can give\", \"exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"State courts\", \"can hear\", \"cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts under certain conditions\")",
-        "summary": "The Federal Courts have subject matter jurisdiction over the case, but they also have subject matter jurisdiction over certain cases that have only a state-based cause of action, such as those with differing state citizenship among the parties and an amount in controversy over $75,000. State courts also have subject matter jurisdiction over certain cases with only a federal-based cause of action. The Supreme Court has made it clear that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over any federal cause of action unless Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts. Federal question cases can often be heard in either state or federal court, and diversity cases can be heard in state courts or federal courts where the tests of complete diversity and amount in controversy are met. The determination of whether a case will be heard in a state court or moved to a federal court depends on the parties involved and the criteria for concurrent jurisdiction. If a plaintiff files a case in a state trial court where concurrent jurisdiction applies, a defendant may (or may not) ask that the case be removed to a federal district court. When both state and federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a case, there is concurrent jurisdiction. Only one court will hear the case between the parties and will hear all causes of action, whether based on state or federal law.",
-        "answer": "(\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"the case\"), (\"Federal courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a state-based cause of action\"), (\"State courts\", \"have subject matter jurisdiction over\", \"certain cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Supreme Court\", \"has made clear\", \"state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over any federal cause of action unless Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"either state or federal court\"), (\"Diversity cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts or federal courts where the tests of complete diversity and amount in controversy are met\"), (\"Case\", \"will\", \"be determined by the parties\"), (\"Plaintiff\", \"can file a case in\", \"state trial court where concurrent jurisdiction applies\"), (\"Defendant\", \"may or may not ask\", \"for the case to be removed to federal district court\"), (\"State and federal courts\", \"have concurrent jurisdiction over a case\", \"when both have subject matter jurisdiction\"), (\"Congress\", \"can give\", \"exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts\"), (\"State courts\", \"can hear\", \"cases with only a federal-based cause of action\"), (\"Federal question cases\", \"can be heard in\", \"state courts under certain conditions\")",
-        "input_text": "the f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction o ver the c ase.  But f ederal c ourts will also ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction  over certain c ases that ha ve only a state-b ased cause of action;  those c ases are ones in which the p laintiff(s) and the  defendant(s) are from diff erent states and the amount in  contro versy is more than $75,000. State c ourts c an ha ve subje ct  matter jurisdiction o ver certain c ases that ha ve only a f ederal- based cause of action. The Supreme Court has no w made clear  that state c ourts ha ve concurrent jurisdiction13  of an y federal  cause of action unless Congress has giv en exclusiv e jurisdiction  to federal c ourts.  In short, a c ase with a f ederal question c an be often be heard  in either state or f ederal c ourt, and a c ase that has p arties with a  diversity of citizenship c an be heard in state c ourts or in f ederal  courts where the tests of c omp lete div ersity and amount in  contro versy are met.  Whether a c ase will be heard in a state c ourt or mo ved to  a federal c ourt will depend on the p arties. If a p laintiff files a  case in state trial c ourt where c oncurrent jurisdiction app lies,  a def endant ma y (or ma y not) ask that the c ase be remo ved to  federal district c ourt.  13. When both state and f ederal c ourts ha ve subje ct matter jurisdiction  of a c ase, there is c oncurrent jurisdiction. Only one c ourt will hear  the c ase betw een the p arties and will hear all c auses of action,  whether b ased on state or f ederal la w. 98  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "3.4    The Pr etrial and T rial Phase \nLearning Objec tives \nAfter reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do \nthe following: \n1. Under stand ho w judges can push par ties int o \npretrial se ttlement . \n2. Explain t he me aning and use o f directed \nverdicts. \n3. Distinguish a dir ected verdict from a judgment \nn.o.v. (\u201cnotwithstanding t he v erdict\u201d). \nAfter c onsiderab le disc overy, one of the p arties ma y believ e \nthat there is no triab le issue of la w or f act f or the c ourt to \nconsider and ma y file a motion with the c ourt f or summary \njudgment. Unless it is v ery clear, the judge will den y a summary \njudgment motion, be cause that ends the c ase at the trial lev el; \nit is a \u201cfinal order\u201d in the c ase that tells the p laintiff \u201cno\u201d and \nleaves no room to bring another la wsuit against the def endant \nfor that p articular set of f acts (res judic ata). If the p laintiff COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  115",
-        "page_label": "122",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Judges\", \"can push parties\", \"into pretrial settlement\"), (\"Directed verdicts\", \"explain meaning and use of\", \"Directed verdict\"), (\"Directed verdict\", \"distinguish from\", \"judgment n.o.v.\"), (\"Res judicata\", \"refers to\", \"no room to bring another lawsuit\")",
-        "summary": "In the legal system, judges have the power to push parties into pretrial settlements. Directed verdicts are a tool used by judges to explain the meaning and use of directed verdicts, which are distinguished from judgments n.o.v. Summary judgment motions are a crucial aspect of the legal process, as judges will typically deny them unless the case is very clear. Summary judgment motions can end a case at the trial level, resulting in a final order. A final order tells the plaintiff that there is no room to bring another lawsuit against the defendant due to the concept of res judicata, meaning there is no room to bring another lawsuit.",
-        "answer": "(\"Judges\", \"can push parties\", \"into pretrial settlement\"), (\"Directed verdicts\", \"explain meaning and use of\", \"Directed verdict\"), (\"Directed verdict\", \"distinguish from\", \"judgment n.o.v.\"), (\"Res judicata\", \"refers to\", \"no room to bring another lawsuit\")",
-        "input_text": "3.4    The Pr etrial and T rial Phase  Learning Objec tives  After reading t his sec tion, you should b e able t o do  the following:  1. Under stand ho w judges can push par ties int o  pretrial se ttlement .  2. Explain t he me aning and use o f directed  verdicts.  3. Distinguish a dir ected verdict from a judgment  n.o.v. (\u201cnotwithstanding t he v erdict\u201d).  After c onsiderab le disc overy, one of the p arties ma y believ e  that there is no triab le issue of la w or f act f or the c ourt to  consider and ma y file a motion with the c ourt f or summary  judgment. Unless it is v ery clear, the judge will den y a summary  judgment motion, be cause that ends the c ase at the trial lev el;  it is a \u201cfinal order\u201d in the c ase that tells the p laintiff \u201cno\u201d and  leaves no room to bring another la wsuit against the def endant  for that p articular set of f acts (res judic ata). If the p laintiff COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS  |  115"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "Alamo c annot c ome to terms. He realizes, ho wever, that he has \nagre ed to hear the dispute with Alamo in a spe cific c ourt in \nSan Antonio , Texas. In the absenc e of fraud or b ad faith, an y \ncourt in the Unite d States is likely to up hold the choic e-of-\nform clause and re quire Haro ld (or his insuranc e comp any) to \nlitigate in San Antonio , Texas. \nKey Takeaway \nThere are two court systems in t he Unit ed States. It \nis imp ortant t o kno w whic h system\u2014 the state court \nsystem or t he feder al court system\u2014has t he p ower \nto he ar and dec ide a par ticular case. Onc e that is \nestablished, t he C onstitution c omp els an inquir y to \nmak e sur e that no c ourt extends it s reach unf airly to \nout-of-state resident s. The ques tion o f personal \njurisdic tion is a ques tion o f fairness and due pr ocess \nto nonr esident s. 108  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "115",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"Alamo\", \"realized\", \"agreed to hear the dispute in a specific court in San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"Haro ld\", \"required to litigate\", \"San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"importance\", \"knowing\", \"which court system has the power to hear a particular case\")",
-        "summary": "The Alamo, a historical site in Texas, realized that they agreed to hear their dispute with He Realizes in a specific court in San Antonio, Texas. However, any court in the United States is likely to uphold the choice-of-form clause and require Haro ld (or their insurance company) to litigate in San Antonio, Texas. In the United States, there are two court systems: state and federal, both of which have the power to hear and decide a particular case. The Constitution compels an inquiry into whether any court extends its reach unfairly to out-of-state residents. Nonresidents are entitled to fairness and due process, which is a question of personal jurisdiction.",
-        "answer": "(\"Alamo\", \"realized\", \"agreed to hear the dispute in a specific court in San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"Haro ld\", \"required to litigate\", \"San Antonio, Texas\"), (\"importance\", \"knowing\", \"which court system has the power to hear a particular case\")",
-        "input_text": "Alamo c annot c ome to terms. He realizes, ho wever, that he has  agre ed to hear the dispute with Alamo in a spe cific c ourt in  San Antonio , Texas. In the absenc e of fraud or b ad faith, an y  court in the Unite d States is likely to up hold the choic e-of- form clause and re quire Haro ld (or his insuranc e comp any) to  litigate in San Antonio , Texas.  Key Takeaway  There are two court systems in t he Unit ed States. It  is imp ortant t o kno w whic h system\u2014 the state court  system or t he feder al court system\u2014has t he p ower  to he ar and dec ide a par ticular case. Onc e that is  established, t he C onstitution c omp els an inquir y to  mak e sur e that no c ourt extends it s reach unf airly to  out-of-state resident s. The ques tion o f personal  jurisdic tion is a ques tion o f fairness and due pr ocess  to nonr esident s. 108  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      },
-      {
-        "text": "judges are often brought into the proc ess to push reluctant \nparties to make more disclosure or to prote ct a p arty from \nirrelev ant or unreasonab le disc overy re quests. F or examp le, the \nparty re ceiving the disc overy re quest c an app ly to the c ourt \nfor a prote ctive order if it c an sho w that the demand is f or \nprivilege d material (e.g., a p arty\u2019s la wyers\u2019 records are not open \nfor inspe ction) or that the demand w as made to harass the \nopponent. In c omp lex cases betw een c omp anies, the disc overy \nof documents c an run into tens of millions of p ages and c an \ntake y ears. Depositions c an c onsume da ys or ev en w eeks of an \nexecutiv e\u2019s time. \nKey Takeaway \nMany cases ne ver ge t to trial. T hey are disp osed o f \nby mo tions t o dismiss or ar e settled \nafter extensiv e disc overy mak es clear to the par ties \nthe strengths and w eaknesses o f the \nparties to the dispu te. 114  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS",
-        "page_label": "121",
-        "file_name": "Business Law, Ethics, and Sustainability.pdf",
-        "file_type": "application\/pdf",
-        "file_size": 4933532,
-        "creation_date": "2024-03-11",
-        "kg": "(\"judges\", \"are often brought into\", \"process\"), (\"process\", \"purpose\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"reluctant parties\", \"to make more disclosure\", \"process\"), (\"party\", \"can apply to court\", \"protective order\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand is for privileged material\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand was made to harass opponent\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"tens of millions of pages\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"takes years\"), (\"depositions\", \"consume\", \"days or weeks of executive's time\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"disposed of by motions to dismiss\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"settled after extensive discovery\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"protect party from irrelevant or unreasonable discovery requests\"), (\"protective order\", \"applied for by party\", \"show demand is for privileged material or harassment\"), (\"extensive discovery\", \"makes clear\", \"strengths and weaknesses of parties\")",
-        "summary": "The process of discovery in legal cases often involves judges being brought into the process to push reluctant parties into making more disclosure or to protect a party from irrelevant or unreasonable discovery requests. In complex cases, the discovery of documents can involve tens of millions of pages and take years to complete. Depositions can consume days or weeks of an executive's time. Many cases never make it to trial, instead being disposed of by motions to dismiss or settled after extensive discovery. Extensive discovery can make the strengths and weaknesses of the parties involved clear, and a protective order can be applied for by a party if they can show that the demand is for privileged material or was made to harass the opponent.",
-        "answer": "(\"judges\", \"are often brought into\", \"process\"), (\"process\", \"purpose\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"reluctant parties\", \"to make more disclosure\", \"process\"), (\"party\", \"can apply to court\", \"protective order\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand is for privileged material\"), (\"protective order\", \"granted if\", \"can show demand was made to harass opponent\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"tens of millions of pages\"), (\"complex cases\", \"discovery of documents\", \"takes years\"), (\"depositions\", \"consume\", \"days or weeks of executive's time\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"disposed of by motions to dismiss\"), (\"cases\", \"never get to trial\", \"settled after extensive discovery\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"push reluctant parties\"), (\"judges\", \"brought into process\", \"protect party from irrelevant or unreasonable discovery requests\"), (\"protective order\", \"applied for by party\", \"show demand is for privileged material or harassment\"), (\"extensive discovery\", \"makes clear\", \"strengths and weaknesses of parties\")",
-        "input_text": "judges are often brought into the proc ess to push reluctant  parties to make more disclosure or to prote ct a p arty from  irrelev ant or unreasonab le disc overy re quests. F or examp le, the  party re ceiving the disc overy re quest c an app ly to the c ourt  for a prote ctive order if it c an sho w that the demand is f or  privilege d material (e.g., a p arty\u2019s la wyers\u2019 records are not open  for inspe ction) or that the demand w as made to harass the  opponent. In c omp lex cases betw een c omp anies, the disc overy  of documents c an run into tens of millions of p ages and c an  take y ears. Depositions c an c onsume da ys or ev en w eeks of an  executiv e\u2019s time.  Key Takeaway  Many cases ne ver ge t to trial. T hey are disp osed o f  by mo tions t o dismiss or ar e settled  after extensiv e disc overy mak es clear to the par ties  the strengths and w eaknesses o f the  parties to the dispu te. 114  |  COUR TS AND THE LE GAL PROCE SS"
-      }
-    ],
-    "signature_instructions": "Convert",
-    "signature_prefix": "Object:"
-  }
-}
\ No newline at end of file